QUESTION #1: Is Texas' application of Tome v.United States unconstitutional,
or wrong where (1) Texas found four-point analysis of Tome applicable to the case;
(2) Texas claims the error does not violate a constitutional right; whereas (3)
SCOTUS stated in Tome Prior Consistent Statements are substantive evidence under
rule 801; and (4) statutory construction of rule 801(d)(1)(B) increases State
interests in finality and comity at the expense of my federal due process rights?

QUESTION #2: Is Texas unconstitutionally increasing their interests in finality
and abusing comity at the expense of citizens' right to due process where (1)
SCOTUS found in Trevino v.Thaler that the Constructions and procedural framework
in Texas do not afford meaningful review of ineffective counsel claims on direct
review; (2) a citizen loses presumption of innocence and many civil rights after
direct review; and (3) State's refusal to entertain I.A.C. claims until Habeas
review raises the burden of proof for petitioners while decreasing the State's
burden?

Whether Texas' application of Tome v. United States violates constitutional due process rights by improperly applying prior consistent statement rules and undermining federal procedural protections