Whether the Texas courts' refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's substantial constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the Texas courts’ refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s substantial constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel contravened this Court’s longstanding requirement that state courts on post-conviction habeas corpus review may not deny federal constitutional claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing when genuine disputes about material facts exist (see, e.g., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (1956)). II. Whether a State must afford a defendant convicted of a felony offense and imprisoned by a state court an adequate corrective process concerning a substantial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court granted certiorari to address a similar question in Case v. Nebraska, 381 U.S. 336 (1965) (per curiam), but ultimately did not address the issue. u STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Ex parte Jessop, WR-94,347-01 (Tex. Crim. App. 3/8/2023) Jessop v. State, No. 03-10-00393-CR, 2011 WL 182871 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 19, 2011). Jessop v. State, No. 03-10-00393-CR, 2012 WL 3155724 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 3, 2012). State v. Jessop, Cr. No. 995 (51st District Court, Schleicher County, Tex. March 19, 2010).