Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel,due-process,statute-of-limitations,grand-jury,prosecutorial-misconduct,habitual-offender

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; Davis alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing | to independently investigate the legal facts, pleadings, and cir‘cumstances surrounding the "amendment and tolling" hearing pertaining to Davis' Statute Barred Indictment(s), (18564 &18640). On July 13, 2010 Davis trial attorney "stipulated" to the tolling of Davis' NON ; PROSECUTORABLE INDICTMENT(S) [without] Davis presence, knowledge, nor consent. : 1. Did the Court of Criminal Appeals err in deferring to the Trial Court finding that Davis was not prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to independently investigate the legal facts, pleadings, and circumstances surrounding Davis' Statute Barred Indictments? 2. Did the trial court err and violate Davis' Due Process Rights by allowing a hearing to proceed [without] Davis' presence, knowledge, nor consent for the sole purpose of reindicting Davis' statute barred indictment(s)? 3. Did the trial court have jurisdiction to try Davis in cause no. : 20784 om indictment that was void from conception because it did not have a subsequent indictment from which to legally tolled the statute of limitations. bar? 4, Did the trial court violate Davis' Due Process Rights and have jurisdiction to circumvent the Grand Jury process by using a motion to amend an indictment and not take the case back to the Grand Jury and seek indictment? | (4) : Davis alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to independently investigate the legal facts, pleadings, and cir-_ : cumstances surrounding the "finality" of his prior conviction(s), . . the State used for enhancement purposes in Cause No. 20784. 5. Did the Court of Criminal Appeals err in deferring to the Trial Court finding: that Davis was not prejudiced by his trial counsel's . failure to independently investigate the legal facts, pleadings, | and circumstances surrounding the."finality"™ of Davis’ prior ; ; conviction(s), the State used for enhancement purposes? . 6. Did the State Prosecutor(s) violate Davis' Due Process Rights | and engaged in Prosecutorial Misconduct by presenting false _ evidence to the trial court and jury about Davis being sent to | the penitentiary for his prior conviction(s), the State used ; | is for enhancement® purposes? ~ ; : 7. Can a person become’ a habitual offender despite never coming to , the penitentiary for his prior conviction(s), the State used for enhancement purposes? . ‘ Le : 8. Did the State Prosecutor(s) commit fraud and perjured themselves by intentionally lying under "oath" to the trial court and jury about Davis being sent to the penitentiary for his prior conviction(s), the State used for enhancement purposes? (ii) ‘ . ; Davis' trial counsel "admits" upon the court record that he was . ineffective by not investigating and understanding the circumstances surrounding the "stipulation" to the tolling of Davis' Non Prosecut; orable Indictment(s), and stated that its not trial strategy, but a mistake, and it was ineffective on his part. 9. Did the Trial Court Judge err, abused its discretion, and violate Davis’ (5th, 6th, and 14th Const.Amend.Rights) by deeming Davis' trial counsel ineffectiveness excusable solely on the grounds of their personal relationship and not take in consideration the totality of the evidence upon the court record? 10. Did the Trial Court Judge err, abused its discretion; and violate Davis' (5th, 6th,.and 14th Const.Amend.Rights) by not establishing the BENEFIT' FOR DAVIS BY HAVING HIS NON PROSECUTORABLE INDICTMENT TOLLED? . 11. Is the "stipulation" and "tolling" of Davis' statute barred indictment (18640) to (20784) VOID because indictment 20784 had no subsequent indictment from which to legally tolled the statue of limitations bar and Davis did not give his consent to the tolling of his statute barred indictment? 12. Did the Trial Court Judge err, abused its discretion, and violate Davis' (5th, 6th, and 14th Const-Amend.Rights) by "BLOCKING" the defense from asserting the s