Whether Federal Courts May Excuse A Petitioner's Failure To Comply With The State Court's Procedural Rules, Notwithstanding The State Court's Determination That Its Own Rules Had Been Violated

Questions Presented 1). “Whether Federal Courts May Excuse A Petitioner's Failure To Comply With The State Court’s Procedural Rules, Notwithstanding The State Court’s Determination That Its Own Rules Had Been Violated”? Il). “Whether Post-Convictions Petitioners Represented By Counsel Should Be Entitled To “Reasonable Assistance Of Counsel,” Regardless Of Weather Counsel Was Appointed (OR) Privately Retained?” III). “Whether The Natural Life Statute, ic. 720 ILCS 5/33N was Held by The Iinois Supreme Court To Be Unconstitutional In Its Entirety And Void Ab Initio, For Violating The Single Subject Rule of Article 4, Section 8 (d) Enacted By The Legislature In Public Act 89-203 (eff. July 21, 1995) And Again In Public Act 89-428 (eff. December 13, 1995) ; | . : List OL Pay bres | _ leat pa tes do 2207 ALO ¢a in L222 CA DLe fe the Case on phe cove gage. LP LSC of afl Car kre 2 the proceeding in the Oe, Wl ose pedgemen fs /. Hon. Lreank y Easte brook. Cou ) Aapea OA uUdge by the even TA wreurt 219.5. Dearborn Sh | Meceo LYi2013 6066 _ Zl Hone wn lhe Marian ourt of Cop vale d wrewlt Judge, | 4 Ze eventh Cir ut 29S. Car Lorre A ee ; . on. 1 Pome HAL ‘, Ki. Dis tric dae, for The 2/95. Dear born SA, wcega LiL nous: b0GoY | Wl hor ne Criéer@ for Leh 20k 22 cong . treet pringdield FHL: 5 62 70/ | ; Sill Hon. Kim beet S Foxx States H+torney Lor \ — | . £29 € | Qexn nn Dbfow : a . / IPT 7 well: 10 a A : Const ti hone! and Stata tor Lrawisio nuolved | Stotement ot phe Case 4 S76,78 Kecasox! Lor ranting The bd yi 172,11 L-19 Conclusion q | ; | Fropen ix 8 _ 4/0 = | Bamdx Ea a , . VII of Li “Led . . Cases ; Lev , | ose v. Lundy , YSS YS. S09 (/9G2 9 HEDPP section 2254 (A) NA) q ayy. 20 wWI7 U.S. 198 2oS(2006) 9 p73. | lack v. 4. Dani F29 Uf. _¥ 83 (g000) /O ok g’, Her. J Liehmen Flore oben ae, 162 10 | Wd Boces p sefion 2V-2, Pp. MAZ-[36 (Sed .Qoos) /O | Lope WA atte 201SLT Bop (157) 123989 LO Zz : | Bove _ CSAS ZAR 2013 Lf op C1°") 00 67 72. | Se CH, lon Z mend. S1xth | | U.S. CA. Con Z£ men a. Ourree | Ost: Gast Hearing fet 2, “Z1¢5 [4224 et. 5¢¢. (westroeg) M12 rephv. Perkin 249 ZV, ad 3Y Y¥2 62007) _ Hl Deop he Vv: arez, ALY LH/, 2d Z (2007) |Zeop/e vi King, 39 ZW/ ad 29S 297 (198) jt |Bople v. Tarser, 1/82 Z/. ad We VIS Ve 89D) | pole _Fnquiann. 2013 ZV. op LT) 3IS8 Il | Leopfp ). Hayes Y9 LU dd 298. 303 1/91/) “TI ; | ovks V. Kege/, 3972.LH/ foo 3d Z 8 (2# 2009 /2 2B USC. Sec, 2297 (d)(/), 2ayvy(d) (2 2. | ray Vi. Zatecky , MSE 32d IOF G2 PGi. BOUT) Je. | 2tene V. KlorvrWe, 360 US. 63), 6Y? (20% ‘2 Weve OK) Vi Farqupar OM, 3664 3d 72 CA._/ (2004) /2. vith ve tants, 208 ad 13/2 GA 2 2000 /2. leerrii v Katehio On), 2.09 F 3) 3257 329-33 CA. S 2000) /2 _Woore uv. United hates 173 F3d. 1131, 118) (CA E199 lé | 7 wk wv. Unite Jabs L77E 3d /2EG 1272. CAM 192 b) Qercacin) AZ | Cases | Lege FELIZ Sec. 229Y Cd QD: 2ASCO~ 2565" 13 | Tewin ve Dept: of Ve . Pf laivs , 9B LS. BF 95-96 U/P9Q) 13-4 not vy. reen , SSF U.S. 67Y (2008 1S lnbere v. Fh recht 327 US. 392,396 (/F | azel2 bs Glass Co. v, b Herd Eoace C 3225S, 238 248/94) j Clema v. Pompsox! Of US. 722, 753 1/971) SY lable Bet 87-203 (ELL July 21,799 14, /SZ 19 Bbhie Bef 75 -/0S2., See. 93 L. Fi, j 2009 /9 Iz oZLG)5 SL336 EF seq. Calest 2008 | 19 ee Mh Onsh Lhch Pec, Cd _ Z i7 Leopfe y. Durni'gan, L6S7ZH 2d 235-23 995) «4°77 tehrmeverv. Chl Gyceay 5 LU, rd 203,20) 179) 17,10 ook exit Date Z Mohitey 13 +4ch. 186, 94-2 B65) 18 | Le bdoer, pa? LHL, SL 247 295 (1969 12 iz b tale bod, Lith 2s LS5.C, Kale 22a5Y 8US5.C. kale 2297 (d)O) (A | | DEUS.C. hile 2253 (c) Ca) 220. CS SI38B 7 Sea. (1 est 2008 bhe et 89-2032 CELL 2 /9F | Yuble Bet 39-428 (EL, Ned bu ya 09s. Lebhe Bet P5-jo052 sec, 92 (CHL I 2009 : In The Supreme Court Of The United States Petition For Writ Of Certiorari Petitioner Jesus Cotto, respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgement below. Opinions Below For cases from federal courts: The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at