cant raises said iaaua (as applicnat~stovan& has! ®n habeas corpus, la vi©tt of no court to data h&vlne, detemlaed whether'a Statute*® Constitutionality not preserved at trial or on motion for new trial and barred from being addressed on appeal due to not trial court preservation has right to raiso said on habeas ©©cpsa.
b. Llfte"lse" since the trial mmk did not "** opportunity to rule on the Constitutionality of § 21*02, Texas Penal Code offense' end the appellate court ruled applicnat was barred from doing so because counsel did not preserve the'Issues ought not applicnat on first habeas corpua be able to raise Ineffractiv© asala&ance of counsel for tailing the lodge objection* eectues&f fiction m acme toaar type attach on fctte Constitutionality of said statute ? In light of the &areaev-v-Stats" supra, esse being ruled upon a year prior to applleaat-Giovaat'a trial?
">2*> c. face, the Issue of whether the Continuous Sexual Abuaa Stat ue anbodled In " 21.02 of the Texas Penal Code la unconatltotional on It*a face and as applied under the State and Padaral Constitut ion because it ellalnetes unanimity has not'been ad&r-eaaad by this Court on habeas corpus. Mather it 'be la/of itself?, or whether counsel's failure to lodge so@e objection, request* action* etc* la deficient conduct? la vlev of the four Judges in Karenev who dissented and the five Judges who ruled it bad to be preserved at trial or on station far aae trial but counsel failed to do bo in the instant case?
r Defease coaaaei'a aali-aarvinf.position t&at he had no val id reaaon to lodge said to preserve the constItutonaiity iaa© bo- cauae the lawon th® aatte-r wan equivocal Is invalid because both the fearenev case and the Ric^ardaoa-v-United States* $26 51.S. 313* 119 S.Ct- 1707, 143 L.@S"ad 98$ (1$99)* ware poblelhad opinions readily available-to defense counsel* sat apparently be "at" not ear* rent aaa/as did "at cMsiieca e^ iw