Is the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution violated when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denies an Applicant habeas relief based on a manner that is not authorized by the Texas Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | 1. Is the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution violated when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denies an Applicant habeas relief based on a manner that is not authorized by the Texas Constitution? 2. Was Petitioner denied due process of law; the right to trial by jury and effective assistance of counsel when he was convicted and sentenced for a charge that was neither alleged in the indictment nor presented to the jury for consideration. See De Jonge v State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Cole v State of Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 202 (1948); Dunn v United States, 442 U.S. 100, 106 (1979); Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 314 (1979). ; 3. Was Petitioner’s right to a jury trial satisfied when the appellate court retried his case _ on appeal under different instructions and on a different theory than was ever presented to the jury? See McCormick v United States, 500 U.S. 257, 270 n. 8 (1991); Wooley v State, 273 : S.W. 3d 260, 271 4. Does the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution allow a : conviction to stand without a jury finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to each and every essential element of the offense? See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970); Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477 (2000); United States v Booker, 543 u.S. 220 (2005); Blakely v Washington, 542 USS. 296 (2004). . . 5. Was Petitioner denied the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution when trial counsel failed to object to the jury charge and admits the same during the habeas corpus evidentiary hearing? ;