I.) 0' (/- "tl\L l Dipnc-f £ev>~-t kU6c^<f C.&u^Jy
Ctt>u5£ //-$ d-iSClrpioin />, ftflfiome.^ fo-hCjl. /'4. full
Cl^c/. fo.Hr- dui'cJjih. h
"fh0M fiS d/oifa of &
Hi of fbt (J.C. Com^4i kf/am 4£a^ihcj r 7 ^h£ucia-/-/mcj
Cohsf' he/ f'ohu / i/,of fiom of -if-e.

2 )Ts If Co of Ch'/^itoaf Appeof ofr*-X*5 ' joo/$£ mi &h f
based on dotinm.'tmi laid i meo iyifoird^oftom coap fh&id
refusal fo Juki fee of ftfiPohem's /g/khs/tseyoes/z
jhCoSl 1 ffeho/dehiu/ of poe Pmaeces ohAea ff yjv fmieioPdiehf
of 4L-c U-S. CotAsflfol/om 7£ h£> a^n

Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals improperly denied habeas relief based on documentary evidence and constitutional violations