Whether Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-21 was unreasonably used to bar the petitioner's fundamental issues of severe importance that revolve around federal treaties

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW a WHETHER MISS. CODE ANN. 99-39-21 WAS UNREASONABLY USED THE BAR TO PETITIONER’S FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OF SEVERE IMPORTANCE THAT WHICH REVOLVES AROUND FEDERALTREATIES WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE AT MINIMUM WARRANTED A RESONABLE CONSIDERATION WHETHER MISS. CODE ANN. 99-39-21 SERVES AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO A PETITIONER'S FEDERAL ISSUES THAT CLEARLY REST UPON THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION’S GUARANTEES ' . . a) The Mississippi Supreme entered an Orderdenying Petitioner ‘s Motion for : Reconsideration of his Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief to that Court on . May 25, 2021. See Exhibit "B", attached hereto.. b) This Court's jurisdiction ‘is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1257(a). B. THEPARTIES a) The Petitioner is Laqunn Gary, who 1s confined at the Wilkinson County _ Mississippi Correctional Facility in Woodville, Mississippi. Petitioner is indigent and proceeding pro se. . b) The Respondent is Burl Cain, Commissioner Of Corrections/State of Mississippi. . C. STATEMENT OF CASE , 1. ‘Laqunn Gary was convicted, following a trial, in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, before Honorable Jeff Weill. Circuit Court Judge, presiding, for the offense of capital murder and sentenced to serve a life sentence, without the possibility of : , parole, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. 2. Gary initially appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court on direct appeal . which affirmed his convictions and sentences. Your Petitioner then timely presented his Post Conviction Collateral Relief Motion, specifically addressing his fundamental distress that which was afforded poor or no reasonable consideration at all. The state court declined to afford the Petitioner any redress of his fundamental issues of severe importance and yet rejected the consideration of the issues pursuant to the Mississippi procedural bars. , . 3. Gary would assert that the failure of the Court to warrant a reasonable consideration upon the asserted claims of fundamental miscarriages constitute fatal error 3. . \ and denied him his constitutional right’s to not be subject to self incrimination. to have v~? ~y — trial by jury, due process of law. to confront the evidence used to produce his conviction . and the ultimate right to receive a fair trial pursuant to the U.S.C.A. 5,614". ; 4. Gary’s post-conviction motion has been denied in the State Court in absence of any consideration of his federal issues that were presented being considered. The issues hold merit on a federal basis and at minima! should warrant a reasonable consideration. No bar should be allowed to supersede the consideration of certain federal issues. This lies so . especially when the issues are timely presented and clearly revolve around substantial Federal . Treaties of Law. Federal Rules Crim.Proc. 52(b)., U.S.C.A. 5.614%, : 4. “* “The state Court’s adjudication upon the merits of the federal issues lie equilivent to an unreasonable ‘ application of clearly established Federal Law as determined by this Honorable Court. The findings were not objectively reasonable under the circumstances when the state statute was allowed to close the ; window to any consideration of the issues. Adequacy in itself is a federal question of law that which your Petitioner respectfully prays warrants the permission to move forward with his writ. The adequacy of state procedural bars to the assertion of federal questions in state cases on federal review is not within a state’s prerogative finally to decide; rather, adequacy is itself a federal question. : 606 Cases that cite this headnote Ordinarily, violation of firmly established and regularly followed state rules will be adequate to . foreclose review of a federal claim in a state case; however, there are exceptional cases in which exorbitant application of a generally sound rule renders the state ground inadequate to stop consideration of a federal question. _