Whether or not State violates an accused person's Due Process Rights when Texas High Court denies his State 11.07 Habeas Corpus, without written order, on 'Findings of Trial Court' that the trial court did not even docket, or hold a hearing to find no findings of facts, yet deferred to Seventh Court of Appeals of Texas in Amarillo, who in return committed that their 'Court Jurisdiction of Plenary Power has run out: Thereby having No Actual Subject Matter Jurisdiction?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | NWether or MoT State Urolates an accused persons Due Process Rights when Teas High Court denies his State 11,07 Habeas Conpus, Without Written OCder, on “Findings of Trial Cocet there the trial Court did nob even docket, oc hold O hea ring to find No F thelings ot facts, yet deteted to Seventh Court of Afpeals o€ Texas i'n Amarillo, Cho én return Commited that therr ‘Court Sucisdietion of Pleanay Power has ran cat: Thereby having No Actual ; Sabyect Mater Tucisdiction? a defense ohteh ts protected by both the 1S: Amendment night Yo Compulsory Process and One Process Clause o€ the Fourteenth Amendment were Urolated by the prosecutor misconduct, by theeating Defense cortnesses; aCter Admontsment by terval Court Judge both jal time, peobation Lr'vlotion, Tevocation and Lutuce Dndictment by o Grand Jory € LNnesses —_Preceeded to want to willingly Test€y in and On Defense's behale? 3) Wether or Dot, Friel appointed Counsel was netbective assistance e)a STK Amendment Right violation Cor failure to Object to pro Secutors “mMisconclact o€ threating the tustnesses he Actua lly Supeened himset€ Y\ Ace an Accused Congttational Rist to testy or Not, Per trial Lounsels Cec iston, nd accused Constitat onal Reat to ExlCective Assistance o€ Counsel" Virslated When Counsel pacpos ely ‘Oecetves his Client thea Mis reprensention of the lau, and withholds evidence from his Chrent CeCe Chad protective Service report ik eherence Member ) 6b254 £95 even pectinent to an Tatellege nt Strategic Decision On Wether on notto testi€y, notunithstanding his Clrents admonidteyt of his cigs? SlAre on vorongly accused Constitutional Right to have CtLeckive Asishance of Counsel Violated chen he fails te make an adaguite (neestigahion into the Caserand make's kad dect'sons , “Ue te hive Experts to rebut the oes Expert Winesses, When Coensel is nok well versed sn the “echnical Sebyect Matter, then instead relies Solely Upon the States Limited, tacntee Investigatt one