Did the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas and the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas San Angelo Division err in deciding the merits of Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus appeal, based on the incorrect and unreasonable application of established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States and based on an unreasonable determination of the facts presented by the trial court's findings and conclusions of law?

Question(s) PRESENTED LL. Did the Court of Criminal APPeals of Texas and the US. Direraet Court Northeen Distact of Texas San AnGelo Division, eRe bi decidrna the merits of Petitioners weit of hnbens corpus Areal, basecl an the ineontect ard unncesonebhlic aPPlic aban oF Estnbliched Federnl law as detecmied by the Suprene Count of tne United Sintes Aad Areled an unreasonable detenMinatian of the facts Presented bY the Ast Dishtiet Court Findines and fenslustans of lawss IL. ls it unconslfukenn( unde the Elett, SnttH and Fou tenn Miendmicnt fora a defense aloaney be provide Mmacsurate lanl advice te a otimal Actendant during Communication oF a states Plea deal, which substiatiaily affeets defend ants direct ability de make aA KNowinG willinG aad Intalio ent detision to the states Ben cleal? ; TH. sit unconsttutioml undee the Fir Sith, md Fouttrente Avendment for « Sinté to intentionally citcumvent and violate A states stale in A Atmival tin). thereby InfernGing A defendants Consttutronal right to Lonflontatian ancl Due Process wih Eaual Pretettion undee the (aw? IW. Does the Constitutian under the Priaeseles of the FiFttl. SitTH, ral Fouetentd Amendment make A distintion Whethen A cmminal defenclat has An APPwinted counse) o@ aetnined eounse) in orden to neve the Consthutional ziGhts established in those Amendments , And if no such distine tn i$ Waremted, did the trial Tudce I Petiboners trial mfeinge Pebhoneas webt As Pompulsany Pracess and Due Prottss with. cGunl Protection unden the law™ . Cont. } Cot, Question (S) Presented V. Did the U.S. Diettict Count of the Nonthean Dishatt of Texas San Anhelo Division ene by aePling a tonflchac TrtenPaetation staaderd ancl incorrect aePlicntian of 28 U.$.€.§ 2244 (AD (A-(D) , EFuIlabic HeNling sand Hs muthont/ to Conrect an insushce, Which calls foe this Surmeme Court SUPER VISiONY Powers. to the eo) that d may seCure A Clema unifoamiyY tn the district tourts And Court of RPPeAIs where other tourts and sister courts have arthed a different standned and APeliention in Reknads ts Pehihonas habers conrus writ? il a | :