Whether a State violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it limits a defendant's ability to raise meritorious claims and systematically refuses to adjudicate those claims through shifting procedural rationales

Whether a State violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it limits a defendant’s ability to raise all meritorious claims on direct appeal, then in collateral review refuses to address the merits of the claims it forced the defendant to abandon. Afterwards, upon the discovery of new evidence to support his claims, various state courts systematically refuse to adjudicate those claims on the merits—shifting procedural rationales at each stage of review so that no court ever reaches the substance of the constitutional violations, despite the record showing and the state acknowledging the existence of jurisdictional defects and illegal sentences. Whether a State provides an “adequate and effective” corrective process, as required by due process, when a criminal defendant is denied merits review of conceded or facially valid claims—first in the trial court, then on direct appeal, and finally in the state court of last resort—based on continually changing procedural bars that ensure the claims can never be heard by a competent court. Whether due process is violated where a State prosecutes a criminal case without jurisdiction and imposes an illegal sentence, yet forecloses all avenues of correction by engaging in procedural gamesmanship that renders constitutional review illusory rather than meaningful.