Whether ineffective assistance of counsel standards in capital cases apply equally to non-capital cases with severe sentencing ranges

1. This Honorable Court has declared that Counsel renders ineffective assistance in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence ina capital punish ment case; therefore, is it equally fair to declare the same in a non capital case when the punishment range is 25-99 to life without the possi bility or consideration of parole eligibility? Cf. Wiggins v. Smith , 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2536 (2003); Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Subsidiary Questions : i. In a non-capital punishment case, does an accused have a right to present a defense and present evidence before the jury during his punishment hearing? ii. In a non-capital punishment case, should an accused have a right to an effective counsel who is willing to present favorable evidence in. the face of four witnesses willing to testify on the behalf of the accused? iii. In a non-capital punishment case, is it reasonable why counsel would choose not to show the jury any favorable evidence on behalf of the accused in order for the jury to consider when assessing a defendant's punishment? 2. Is Section 21.02(d) of the Texas Penal Code unconstitutional because it is void for vagueness, the statute is too broad concerning specificity; and thus, should Jacobsen and its progidy be overruled? Subsidiary .Questions : i. Does Section 21.02 of the Penal Code authorize or encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement? ii. Did Texas Courts' conclusion that Section 21.02(d)'s term "[series] of acts of sexual abuse" constitute the^underlying brute facts or means con flict with this Court's reasoning in Richardson v. U.S. 7 ii decision and its prodigy be overruled because: iii. Should Jacobsen s 21.02(d)'s words create several elements, namely, the several violaeach of which the jury must unanimously and separtions," in respect to ately agree upon? iv. What is thelevel of specificity within the CSA Statute that is required and that must be agreed upon by jurors? defendant defend against a CSA statute when the state is allowed and all evidence they wish to submit to the jury, tell the jury be unanimous in their verdict, then hold a conviction the uncorroborated and unsupported testimony of thev. How can a to put any they do not have to based solely on victim alone? habeas Petitioner be allowed to first have a meaningful opportunity 'to be heard before a tribunal; and thus, have a fair and full hearing to develop the habeas record pertaining to the fact-finding process, and the of controverted issuers) before the Court of Criminal Appeals decides to deny the Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel grounds without a written opinion? Cf. Boddie v. Connecticut , 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971); Keeney v. Tanayo-Reyes , 504 U.S. 1, 10 (1992); Townsend v. Sain,3. Should a resolution 372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963). iii