Ground #1. Whether Smithback is being deprived of his liberty without due process of law, to wit: Texas did not have subject matter jurisdiction, persuant to the Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. .513 (2000) decision, to arrest, 6hdige, indict. convict, and sentence him to fourty-five years imprisonment in the Texas Dep artment of Criminal Justice;

Ground #2. Whether Smithback is,.being deprived of his liberty without due process of law, to wit: failing to pro- vide Smithback with th::trial 1byury, as he reque- sted, due to the prosecuting witnesses deliberate refusal to appear twice for said trial;

Ground 3. Whether Smithback is, being deprived of hiá liberty without due process of law, to wit: Texas unconstitutionally induced plea agreement withoptjurisdiction;

Ground #4. Whether Texas has engaged in selective prosecution, to wit: prosecutin Smithback regardless of juris- diction, but'deliberately refusing to prosecute the suspected perportrator(s) involved in the sexual assault of Smithback.

Whether Smithback is being deprived of his liberty without due process of law