Whether a state court's overruling of its prior precedent forbidding consideration of the cumulative prejudice of multiple errors at trial conflicts with federal due process, conflict-free assistance of counsel, and equal protection guarantees

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question One: Priur iv February 10, 2020, Georgia (Supreme Cuucij had repeaiedly eid diai although the combined effects of trial counsel's errors should be considered together as one issue, it remains the case that “[t]his State does not recognize the cumulative error rule”, {and] ‘it do not consider the collective prejudicial effect of multiple errors by the trial court, or the collective prejudicial effect of trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel"; The Question is: ¢ Ifa State court overrule all of its prior precedent forbidding courts from consideration of the cumulative prejudice of multiple errors at trial which conflicted with (Strickland v. Washington, should a State prior blatant disregard for clearly established federal law be discounted at the expenses of Petitioner's Federal Due Process, Conflict-free Assistance of Counsel and Equal Protection guarantees? Question Two: * Did the state court violate federal Due Process and Equal Protections guarantees in dismissing habeas petition as untimely and / or successive, when evidence is presented during the proceeding that Petitioner acted in a reasonubie and ditigent manner iv uncover tie iegat grounds upon which he seeks to rely in an allegedly successive petition? Question Three: * Does the state court dismissal of habeas petition as untimely and/or successive conflicts with this Court's decision in Cuyler vy. Sullivan, (1980), since it ignores that in Cuyley vy, Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), the Court established that [t]o show ineffectiveness, a petitioner must demonstrate that his defense attorney had an actual conflict of interest, and that this conflict adversely affected the attorney's performance? Question Four: * Did the state court decision to dismiss petition as untimely and/or ; successive infringe on Petitioner's Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees, and conflict with Strickland y. Washington, 466 U.S. 669, 698 Yd diy @ . (1984), since it blatantly disregarded that in Strickland v. Washington, the Court held that if defendant shows that counsel's "ERRORS" were so serious as to deprive him of a fair trial, he is entitled to a reversal of convictions on ineffectiveness grounds? Question Five: The State elected to try Mr. Westmoreland on multiple Felony Murder counts and Vehicular Homicide for the same victim. Georgia is a proximate cause state, and in virtually all of it's many homicide statutes, including felony murder and vehicular homicide, the General Assembly has employed the same or very similar causation phrasing; The question is: + Does ihe siuie habeus couri decision iv dismiss peion us untimely and/or successive conflicts with Jackson v, Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), ‘ since it blatantly disregard that in Jackson v. Virginia, this Court held , : that relief is available if it is found that upon the record evidence adduced at trial no rational trier of facts could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of the substantive elements of the . criminal offense as defined by state law? LISTS OF PARTIES [ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [X] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all