Whether a State Appellate Court's unexplained failure to allow a petitioner to file a successive petition for last-ditch chronological relief under Rule 37.5 and Post-Conviction Rule 37.1 violates the petitioner's constitutional rights of equal protection and due process

No question identified. : QUESTION CS) PRESEN TFC , : DL. Ts a Stote Appellate Gurks unexplarned ty allaw 4 petitioner b fle a suacess/ve petition for last-Loyy chron relied uncler Rule LB anel fostCavietron Role LIA) Meritorious teins 44 unconst: tutional clearal of aguel protection ot the law anol Due Process uncler 644 anh LY@ | Amendment of He Unctecl states const tution ; I Trial Counsel vot provieling aoleguate represeatadisa of a the 64 bmenclmeat of the Uncteel stule§ constitu hse Commancls Carein recesVeEI. Shite in wolation uncer LL. 33-33-H, Jorol. Conot. Art. 1, 520. I ancl the Unitecl States Cash tutor 642 [4 Ayrerdinett engogedl in prosec utr cl unc’ bordlucte ot» HW. Stake engaged ia prosecutorial misconcleeteol femparhs “ith o wlness a whole. week prior b tral. wolatior grolec F656 34-31 and the Uuted Sfates bnshtubva 114 Am calc . le HE, Trial Court in vigfution onder Unted shates Cashubsnr 8s : Amindment forlure. fo londvet a Compelaney hearing of allege. Uictem poor fe bral. TE: Teal Loork-vn veolabron wneler Ino. Loash Arf b scold, C0 LAE) CR £00) ancl tented! sales lonsh tution 64 hmenrdmeat nolafny baree3 speedy bial protectior s WE, tral Coord in violation under Lerol Evid. Pale, 80303), Inol Friel. ; Role, 503 C1) LB) C8), L Ce 35> 33-$28 CB) CB), LABS 394-6 enol . 3 Unrtecl states Constitution 6 Fandlly# Amendment, antairly : i preudiccal ancl unconstitutronal allowed both hearsay aad testi ono, |( Shtenreats at trial. VI. Sfate in wolafioe oncker Untect ofa fes Constefubiea 6% | . and W& fimendnedt Lagogedl yin prosecutorial prrstoroluct Franre perly aypliecl WA evidence te the Fury yor ts closing Shotemect to have a probable persuasbe effect ov the Dery cleeesi du precy bare. #a a grove pearl posite .