Whether Oklahoma's application of successive postconviction procedural bars constitutes an adequate and independent state ground precluding federal review of a Sixth Amendment claim involving denial of counsel and fraud on the court

1. Whether Oklahoma's application of its successive postconviction procedural bars (22 O.S. §§ 1086,1080.1) constitutes an adequate and independent state ground precluding federal review of Petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim, where Petitioner was denied counsel at a critical stage (preliminary hearing) because an assistant public defender actively misrepresented her status as his counsel, while simultaneously representing.the key adverse witness, constituting a fraud on the court that is confirmed by newly discovered evidence, that prevented the claim from being adequately raised previously? 2. Whether the Oklahoma Court of criminal appeal's reliance on state procedural bars (22 O.S. §§ 1086, 1080.1) to deny review of Petitioner ’s claim of denial of counsel due to fraud supported by newly discovered evidence conflicts U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding the reviewability of federal claims defaulted due to state action or fraud, particularly in light of the principles regarding dependent state grounds discussed in Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. _ (2025)? 3. Weather petitioner was denied counsel at a critical stage (preliminary hearing) requiring automatic reversal without pleading prejudice, in light of the principles in CHRONIC?