Whether the Oklahoma state courts had jurisdiction to prosecute the petitioner after the federal court refused to hear the case and dismissed the charges a year later

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1, WHAT (8 PropER REMEDY UNEH s7ATE COURTS REFUSING TO HEAR. CASE WHERAI A Muelt7yl COTY GRAM) Tule RerusEed TO redtcr PETIT“VONEA KAI OME YEAR LATER. THE DSH ACE AFTORNGY PROSECUTED HIM ANYWAY , OM THE SAME BY/D ENCE, FOR SAME ACT? DOES THE OKLAHOMA STATE YES FifAisSDicrlOn, TO PROSECUTE ANYWAY ? 2. Le me scervepeecstow BY THE STATE PhROsiCceljvionw OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, FAVORABLE FO AW ACCUSED A ViOlATHO OF THE DUE PRecBSs AND U.S.C.A,. Cosdsrt7urtouw AMENDMENT I4 ? C INFOLMIATION ABOUT EXISTEMCE OF GLAND FuRey And ITS (REFUSAL TO (MOFCT THE ACCEESED WWIAS HIDDEXM BY THE STATE PROSECLT FOS FILOK DEFEMSE y DEFEMBAHT ALD TRIAL ruRey) 3, WHE ONE ACT IS BeeKesl BOWAL [NTO KLANY COCMTS IN OHETREAL , SAME BYIDENCE , 2AME VICTIG, CAN OCLAHOMA STACK SENTENCES SO THAT TOGETHER /P EXCEEDED MAXIMUM PUM ISHMENT DETERIAIKED BY THE STATUTE FoR. PARTICULAR. CRIME ) $O 17 COnNSTITUTES DEATH BY (HBARCERA— riox? 4. WHE A PERSON £5 DETAINED /N A STATE PRISOM WITHOUT A VALID ORDER. OP COMM/TMENT Flot A LAWFUL COURT HAVING F1RESA} CPA OM TO DBTATY tH, iS ITA 2241 02.2254 poarTeRe ?