I.
Is State Appellate Court's unexplained to allow a petitioner to file a successive petition for Post-Conviction reliet under Rule I(zz) and Post-Conviction Role I (A) (4). Meritorious dlaim's an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the law and Due Process unoder Gh and 141 Amendment of the United states constitution.

II.
Trial Counsel not providing adeguate representation of the se Amendment of the United state's constitution commands Carcia receive.

III.
State in violation under IC. 33-32-H, Ind Const. Art.2,sec. 11 and the Unifed State's Constifution 6and (4t Amendment engaged in prosecutorial misconducted.

IV.
State engaged in prosecutorial misconducted tempering with a witness a whole week prior to trial. violafion onder IC.34. 37-2-1 and the United States Constitution 14s Amendment.

V.
Trial Court in violation under United state's Constitution 14 Amendment failore to Conduct a Competeney hearing of allege victin prior to trial.

VI.
Trial CoorfinvidatiOn under Ind.Const. Arf. tseai2, ce.Y(A), CR. yco) and united state's Constitution 64 Amendment violating barcia's speedy tral protection:

VII.
Trial Coort in violation under Ind.Evid. Rule,8oez), Ind Erid. Rue, 803 (4) (B) (8), IC.35-33-5-2 CB) (2), IC.35-37-4-6 and United state's Constifution 6#handly Amendment,unfairly prejudicial and cnconstitutional allowed both hearsay and testimonorial statements at trial.

VIII.
State in violation under Unifed State's Constiftution and l4kh Amendment engaged in prosecutorial misconduct Improperly applied oNt evidence to the Jury vpon ts closing statement to have a probable parsuasive effect on the Jury decision placing Carcia in a grave peril position.

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