Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rulin g, denying Petitioner a second Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07 §4 (a)-(c). is in error, when Petitioner had no legal counsel on his first state writ of habeas Corpus, Petitioner raises a substantial claim of the inneffective assistance of counsel on his se cond state writ regarding the performance oh his trial counsel, petitioner seeks to apply the equitable exception to his procedural default in state court that is outlined in the Supreme Court's holding in TREVINO V. THALER 133 S. CT. 1911(2013).

WHETHER THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Northern Distrcit of Texas erred in dismissing Petitioner's first federal writ of habeas corpus, w-finding the writ was time barred in direct contravention to the Supreme Court's Holding in TREVINO V. THALER 133 S,CT, 1911(2013), which provided that proceduraly defaulted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may proceed on a first federal petition if there was no counsel in the initial review collateral proceeding, or counsel in that proceeding was inneffective.

Whether a guilty plea is made when the prosecution fails to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense that the defendent did not commit the charged offense, & the defendent, had that evidence been made known to him,would have chosen to go to trial insted of pleading guilty based upon the evidence's direct corroboration that the charged offense was committed by someone else than the defendent.

Whether a defense attornet in a capital murder case renders the effective assistance of counsel to a client pleading guilty, when the prosecution withholds exculpatory evidence from the defense, the defense attorney does not discover the evidence in his own investigation, the attorney does not advise the defendent of the exculpatory evidence & the

Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling denying Petitioner a second Writ of Habeas Corpus is in error