Did the trial court have jurisdiction to convict the petitioner?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED nace Petitioner's conviction, while his case was under direct review, State High-Couct held in an unrelated case--Stukes . [L]--that the trial courts instructing the jury on State Statute Code § 16-3-657 was unconstitutional, and it's holding is effective in (Petitioner 'd] case[] on direct review. petitidner nor his State-assiyned appellate-counsel objected ‘to the new rule Le law, however it's apylication beiny retroactive. After four years of unsuccessful exhaustion of state Appellate remedies, iniwhere town-clerk repeatedly fails to docket Petitioner's Application [For Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) and State Hiyh-Court exercised di retion not to review the case {2}, Petitioner now desires federal review of a constitutional claim seeking immediate Supreme Court review by ” 1 DID : RETRIAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION Tp CONVICT PETITIONER ? (1] State v. — 416 sc 493, 787 SE2d 480 (2016). [2] Moore vs! Kixby, D.C.W.Va. 1995, 879 F.Supp». 592, 593, (Exhaustion is sstiaties if the hiyh court exercises discretion not to re iew the case). | ; it . |