Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in denying habeas corpus relief where potentially exculpatory evidence was withheld and the petitioner's constitutional rights may have been violated

ESTIONS) PRESENTED ’ ; ull ® nae semael Yates , itiener, bot ow’ age fespect rally ask Hee Coos te aan the. decision of Mire rae Coutt of Criminal Appeals denial of Stee Habeas Corpus on May SAOOY FR. C+. NO: 19938-A, WR-9S,S09Ot, Without written ofden, Three afounds fr esentee) ore Lactudsll ve) tth mec it, supported by the oppend ik attacked. Tex. Code Ceims froc. Art. We? «Petitioner alleges Hrok being his & Brother -in~ how US Upshur County Sudae, whos Close friends with us Oistrict Court Jurkge ond Wi Court be ointe / Counsel, thet both should have recused then. Selves . e Potitione alleges }iS Oisterct Nuke refusal to rale on hig Motion To Withdray Plea of Galt, Ciled March4, 2023, Violates Kis Pourteanth mene men rights fe Sue Po ces Rhone rs 304rsentence WoS coher to owid.50 ur oer fom (S.Re ‘ Petitioner ask this Court to Feview the In dictm ent Where the same Core’ Change” Was used ax enhancement furace &S clemr ly shown. 0 Petitioner alleges Fiolkth Amendment violation, Where. ot let years of age, 0 3O year Sentence, Clear lu oubweighs dine arches of amount of ollesed substance SYarams e Poti tponer ask dre Court Loe reviewal, Where Counse| Was a “\ w\ i ny the subbptession at evidence, aba hearing: He filed the mot on, but ditt acgue the Lacts . Fettienes alleges, Four te mend ment vroletion , bu phe dolmission of iMegally fe) bhained evidence Wit. Worrant leas trokl{ic Stop.