THE APPLICANT ANY NOTICE OF THE:(b)- SEE APPLICANT SUCCE- SSIVE PETITION ON [ARGUEMENT OF VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL , OF ERRORS AND DOCUMENTATIONS OF PROOF]
( 2) ~;_-p,\"('2).-THE STATE STATES THAT THE. APPEICANT THAT HE.: FECTIVE · ? TRIAL COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS ATTO~NEY,
DID NOT OBJECT TO THE LACK NOTICE OF THE STATE'S WITNESS
APPLICANT OBJECW~~NOT~TRUE
BUT APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTLVE~ASS~S~ANCE
ANCE OF COUNSEL.: BY>'NOT OBJECTING TO THE STATES EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT ALLOW PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES ~PPELANT PROCEDURE RULE 30 (b) (7)
~= 1 (3) . THE STATE ~TATES THAT T~E APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DE~ NIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT FULLY INVE- STIGATION HIS CASE:
APPLICANT OBJECT: NOT TURE THE; APPLICANT. CLAIMs-· .L THAT; ~;THE,:::· 'GRAND JURY DID ITS INVESTI- ··.. · .. GATION AND FOUND NO EVIDENCE OFi'THIS:~STAirE WITNESS AS IN EXHIBIT (b)
(4). THE STATE STATES THAT THE APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DENIED , HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION: ..!.J {t.-•
APPLICANT DOES NOT OBJECT: APPLICANT CLAIMS THA~ HE HAS A RIGHT TO FACE HIS ACCUSERS AND TO SEE IF THEY ARE REAL BY NOT SUBPONA DUCES'::TECtJM "THE '.:"-~!:.T..ff.E:SS .: IDHAT~WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS ARE HAD ANY RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT HAS NOT BEEN BEFORE THE JURY IS A VIOLA- TION OF THE APPLI~ANT TEXAS AND~FEDERAL COUNSTITUTIONALS A- MENDMENTS RIGHTS 6th/5th/14th.
AR