Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals's waiver bar is an independent and adequate state procedural ground that forecloses federal habeas review

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner was sentenced to death at a trial at which he did not cooperate with counsel in preparing his defense, repeatedly disrupted proceedings, told counsel he would “rather be shot in the courtroom” than present witnesses in mitigation, and told the jury, “‘y’all can [expletive] kill me.” The day after he received his death sentence, Petitioner refused appointment of state postconviction counsel and said he “want[ed] to waive all my appeals and will have execution set as soon as possible.” The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals enforced Petitioner’s waiver of state postconviction proceedings without a determination that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, or voluntary, or was competently made, and without the assistance of counsel. At the certificate of appealability (COA) stage, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the waiver bar was inadequate as an alternate ground for affirmance and denied a COA on Petitioner’s claim that the trial court was required to conduct an inquiry into his competency to stand trial under Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) and Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975). These facts present the following questions: 1. Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s waiver bar is an independent and adequate state procedural ground that forecloses federal habeas review. 2. Whether a defendant’s history of paranoia stemming from mental illness and brain dysfunction, together with his refusal to consult with counsel or assist in his defense, and self-destructive, suicidal, and disruptive behavior at trial apparently connected to his mental illness and brain dysfunction creates sufficient doubt about a defendant’s competency to assist and consult with counsel, even if the defendant is capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings. 3. Whether the Fifth Circuit ignored the certificate of appealability requirement and exceeded its jurisdiction when it reversed the district court’s conclusion that the waiver bar was not adequate to prevent federal merits review, affirmed the denial of relief on that ground, and denied a certificate of appealability on Petitioner’s underlying Pate claim.