Whether Georgia's Habeas Corpus Act violates constitutional protections when procedural bars prevent meaningful review of a potentially wrongful conviction

The Petitioner, Mr. Phillip White, was wrongfully convicted in the State of Georgia for a crime he did not commit. His wrongful conviction was marred by multiple constitutional structural violations and systemic errors that rendered the trial and appellate proceedings fundamentally unfair. Despite presenting new, compelling evidence of actual innocence, the Georgia courts arbitrarily applied procedural bars to preclude habeas review, perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice. The enforcement of unconstitutional statutes, coupled with procedural barriers that prevent meaningful review, perpetuates systemic injustices and undermines public confidence in the judicial system. By granting certiorari, this Court can reaffirm its commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights, correcting miscarriages of justice, and preserving the integrity of habeas corpus jurisprudence. 1. Does Georgia Habeas Corpus Act violate the Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when a state post-conviction court arbitrarily and unfairly applies procedural bars, rendering them inadequate to preclude federal habeas review and resulting in a fundamental miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether the wrongful conviction and continued incarceration of an actually innocent Petitioner violate constitutional protections, including the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 3. Whether newly uncovered psychiatric mitigating evidence under Sears v. Upton satisfies the actual innocence gateway claim under Schlup v. Delo and McQuiggin v. Perkins when the state court record reflects a McCoy v. Louisiana structural error by clear and convincing evidence. 4. Whether the Petitioner ’s convictions, based on void ab initio judgments, violate due process rights under Fiore v. White and Lawrence v. Texas. 5. Whether the Georgia courts ’ enforcement of arbitrary procedural bar rules contravenes the Suspension Clause and denies meaningful habeas corpus review. 6. Whether ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel violated the Petitioner ’s Sixth Amendment rights at all critical phases of his prosecution. 7. Whether the Petitioner ’s continued incarceration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. 8. Whether the Georgia habeas court ’s fact-finding deficiencies and subsequent Georgia Supreme Court ’s denial decision violated federal constitutional principles and the Constitution ’s original meaning. 9. Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to notice preclude an State Appellate Court from affirming a conviction based on lesser-included conduct not materially charged in the indictment or submitted to the jury, where the evidence in light of the verdict was constitutionally insufficient to support the greater offense and constituted an acquittal? ii 10. Whether the wrongful conviction and incarnation of an individual who is actually innocent violate the Ninth Amendment ’s unenumerated rights, the Eighth Amendment ’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Liberty, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby necessitating the recognition of a freestanding actual innocence precedent? 11. Whether the Georgia Supreme Court ’s decision and the underlying post-conviction proceedings deprived the Petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to present claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, violating the principles articulated in Sears v. Upton, Martinez v. Ryan, Trevino v. Thaler, and Ake v. Oklahoma, and resulting in a fundamental miscarriage of justice? 12. Whether systemic procedural barriers enforced by the Georgia courts were inadequate to preclude federal review under Jones v. Sec’y Dep ’t of Corr., and whether such barriers caused a fundamental miscarriage of justice warranting equitable habeas corpus relief under Murray v. Carrier? 13. Whether prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative structural errors-including constitution