Whether the admission of extraneous sexual offense evidence violated the petitioner's due process and equal protection rights, and constituted ineffective assistance of counsel

Due to the inherently inflammatory and prejudicial nature of sexual offenses against children, with its tendency to suggest a verdict on an improper basis, was the petitioner's due process and equal protection rights violated by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Ann. art. 38.37? Was trial counsel constitutionally ineffective because he failed to raise a due process and equal protection objection? Did the trial court commit reversible error by finding that the evidence of an extraneous offense would be sufficient, that a jury would find the accused guilty of the extraneous offense, beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely upon the alleged victim's testimony alone? 2.