[SEE APPENDIX D] WHO IS UNABLE HIMSELFWITH
HOBEOS CORPUS POSTCONUICTION PETI TION TO THE COURTS ).--
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HELP BY ANOTHER INMATE
"WRIT WRITER - JAILHOUSE LAWYER" ESTABLISHED BY THIS
COURT IN JOHNSON U. AVERY393 U.S. 48389S.CT. 747
21 L.Ed.2d. 718 (I9G9)VIOLATED AND ABUSED WHEN THIS
UNSCRUPULOUS INMATE WRIT WRITER FILED A TOTALY
FRIVOLOUS STATE POSTCONVICTION PETITION WITH THE
COURTS ON PETITIDNER'S BEHOLF WHICH CAUSED SUCH TO
BE DENIED
AND RUINED PETITIONER'S "ONE SHOT CHANCE"
AT
TEXAS'S
STRICT POSTCONUICTION RELIEF UNDER TEX.
CODE CRIM.PROC.ART. 11.OT SEC. 4 (Q)TO PRESENT
PETITLONER'S MERITFUL GROUNDS THAT HIS DUE PROCESS
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS UIDLATED WHEN THE TRIAL
COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON HIS COMPETENCY
TO STOND TRIAL SEE APPENDIX D AS REQUIRED BY
PATE V.ROBINSON383 U.S. 37586 S.CT. 836 15 L.Ed.2d.
815(I966) AND DROPE V.MISSOURI420 U.S. 16295 S.CT.
896, 43 L.Ed. 2d. 103 (1975).?

[2].
DID THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS (CCA) VIOLATE
PETITIONER'S EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT U.S.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY DENYING HIS SUGGESTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION /REHEARING OF THE CCA'S DENIAL
OF
STATE POSTCONUICTION RELIEF WHICH RAISED THE
ISSU
ABOVE UNDER "QUESTIONGS PRESENTED (ID." AND DID THE
CCA IMPROPERLY FAIL TO CONSIDER THIS PROBLEM WITH
UNSCRUPULOUS INMATE WRIT WRITERS WHO USE THEIR
SUPERIOR PERSONAL POWER AND INTELLIGENCE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF LESSER ENDOWED INMATES AS THIS COURT
NOTED WOULD HAPPEN IN JOHNSON U.AUERY393 US.AT 4
89 S.CT. AT 7SO AND PROCUNIER V-MARTINEZ 4I6
u
396 AT 421-422 94 S.CT. 1800 AT 1815 (1974).?

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments were violated