Did the South Carolina courts err in denying relief on petitioner's claims that his constitutional rights were violated?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : PD Ox 3 ppedou'l E vaned toy cotter OH OU H'8 te 4 o A IN dent Seord and Zunes. Fac Loen\o, Pro rele Kouse 2. Oxd tro 3 dug Ce Maddox louse Jen) \ de ae) NU V. diggers Sugges Ag meoy ont /\ 3. Did Blo’ / na Si Cire pybtrom J eos) Prose Aon \ SPorare d amen yy Ly. Did tye.) Co Ro lore we ‘Amchd fechve Juss hp ~ ie 5 Ryd united Shs Sdoth Cofoling /seddpaar Aig vied Fook (Violahy tne |-caow CO i 24 ons VU \ for Commercre se : |. Did Moasial® Su Ceol Gres Eaton err ww violakid Le 9 ae. \ 1) We Hy Derma ment, Seow ONS Servzure, Ovotsetote Cause. 1} Sanna Orvest oof OW Vevey Vumion Loews \usded US a end [vicki 2 i], Woes the process ley South Caroline 16 erence judicial Cacrv \legul 2? jul, Ord Worl Counsic odd hucas 5 hora vA. Coudn, cond Pon Thom ps an State apponted Couns\e Wonspire Jo Violate OY Armd. Tyrant yo effechye cassis. ) Wl. Does Owurencss, Ond O lncgh leuct of Con CiousnesS jushtred The Stake of South Caroling Chm mee Juste System lo ene: Celef of Meqo| Conviction 7 ew EEO NN a