Whether the procedural bar statute was properly applied

QUESTIONS PRESENTED () Dep me grate. OF TENS PROPERLY APPLY THE PROCEDURAL BaR (STHUE OF LEMCMATIOws ins WeITNo. WBI£55602 T (¢-0) Pursuant To aer: LOT OFTHE Cone oF Crim. Proc. WHER EGRAOR OVARY CEeCUMSTARKES ELST ® Have TRTOGND EQUTABLE TOW ? DED THE SPIE CouRT (TRIAL TUNE Tack Hamerow) ABUSE HES DESCheeTEOM VABUATING Perrtionse's Due Pacwess REGNIS ar Posr-Tesal Susoe's Henacnsy WHERE end 4 ef THE IZ Jupens Wene callep Lpow TO ANS? TO THE . TeusStwoerummese OF TMD Veneer ? (33 was TETAL COUNSEL EGREGTHUSLY TENEFRECTIVE BY CAUSGUG EXTRDUSEO TNFOtmation OF Pererromen's Povoins Cuneces (Capea mpoer b Rurvaren Robbery) To Be Pest ww THE. Pullic which woftcren WE BTM Jury Faved The-Teeaean trea NEUR Beougir TO THE Covers atte” UyTE, BET — WAIAL, Was ferirtonen's Serene AMENMAENT RIGHT TO EFFECT IU Tea. COW Seg UIECATEO ZHU pay ACCUMULATION OF TREAL CoUMsEL EROS ? WAS APPEWATE. COURSEL Johy D. Watton (Oouins, 7h.) TNErFECTIVE BY FRAG Out Owe(1) eee cas MEEK V. STATE No, 05-40 -00553eR (TeExRep. Dawas mag .(4T 141, pet. gefd) ? (5. Stop SQUETRBLE TOLUBUG, HAVE. BEEN) TRtixGtED BY ELINR THE STATE OG Federal Covers WHE tas 2Ol Peer Foonuo edt THAT HIS Cover ApPCINE APPELLATE ATION Lid) Him Back tar (990 COMCER REINS THE, tact THAT A RECOGD OF THE POST TRIAL Juroe's TEST OME Does ta Facr ease WHICH IS 4 BaSts Fog Many CONSTITUTLONAL VIOLATIONS INCL UMN * ‘Suro miscousverSuey bias, TNCFFECTLUE ASSISTRWLE OF TRIAL Ano SPetare, Counse(— awo~ Ahuse OF OFSC retin oF THE TRIne Couer ? ' . LISTOF PARTLES _ (X] ALL PARTIES Do NOT APPEAR IN THE CAPTION OF THE CASE Ow THE COVER PAGE, A LIST OF ALL PAeTrES TO THE PRoCEMms Do THE. Cour WHOSE TuoqmauyT £5 THE SUBJECT OF THIS PETITION xs as FOiLow S$ (1) James A. Meeks OE (2) James a. meets a (Pemnoicn) ( Revere) STATE OF TEXAS Loete Duss, on mcrad Go) (Restovoeur') USDC.Np 34 18-Cvi537 D; Cause No, W8985562T (e-0) 18-1027 Seq :