1. How can the state courts deny appeal on a issue of prejudicial 1101(B) evidence on a uncharged act used to prove intent where the police report of states witness is entirely different from trial testimony proving perjury and prosecutor coercion and witness gives different description of defendant who says he never interacted with this witness because he was in jail?

2. How can state courts deny habeas corpus appeal that raised same issues of direct appeal and Ineffective Appellate Counsel for him not raising numerous meritorious issues and investigating evidence to support these issues such as insufficiency of evidence on defendants direct appeal?

How can lower state courts disregard defendants habeas corpus argument regarding the use of an invalid illegal strike prior to enhance his sentence that his ineffective appellate counsel didn't raise on his direct appeal?

How can lower trial court commit error and cite in their denial defendant made a claim of I.A.C. trial counsel on his habeas corpus when defendant was Pro Per during his entire case, mistaking defendants claim of I.A.C. appeal counsel (See: appendix D)?

How can lower courts disregard defendants habeas corpus and direct appeal argument regarding denial of his continuance to obtain a psych evaluation due to his mental health disorders and to complete his new trial motion that was never heard or ruled on and under p.c. 1202 warrants new trial?

How can lower courts disregard defendants direct appeal and habeas corpus argument regarding him litigating his entire case Pro Per with no psych eval for his hindering mental health disorders that were ignored by trial court?

Is it abuse of discretion and prejudicial to admit 1101(b) evidence when prosecution offered no other evidence to any threats, extortion to show similarities of uncharged act and charged act other than the 1101(b) witnesses testimony not ever previously alleged in any police reports or witness interview before trial.(See: People v. Long (Cal.App.3d Dist May 13, 1970) 7 Cal.App. 3d 586, 86 Cal Rptr. 590, 1970 Cal. App. Lexis 2193 circumstantial proof of a crime charged cannot be intermingled with circumstantial proof of suspicious prior occurences in such manner that it acts as a psychological factor, with the result that proof of the crime charged is used to bolster the theory or foster suspicion that defendant must have committed the prior act and the conclusion that he must have committed the prior act is then used to strengthen the theory and induce the conclusion that he must also have committed the crime charged).?

Did trial court and all appellate courts violate petitioners due process of law admitting uncharged act that had no sufficient relevance to material fact in issue in current prosecution and the connection between uncharged offense and ultimate fact in dispute is not clear? Did the appellate courts err not addressing this? (See: People v. Weathers (Cal App. 2d dist. June 23, 1969) 274 Cal.App. 2d 232, 79 Cal.Rptr 127 (1969 Cal.App.Lexis 2093).

BY issuing a summary denial on petitioners habeas corpus did all appellate state courts fail by not addressing petitioners ineffective appellate counsel claim when he raised the meritorious issues his appellate counsel didn't ?

Did the summary denial deprive petitioner of just due process of law on the insufficiency of evidence argument when all defendants charges consisted of the specific intent element that prosecution never proved and evidence by defendant proved specific intent was not met?

Does the reasonable doubt standard matter anymore when courts

Whether the state courts erred in denying appeal on prejudicial 1101(B) evidence on uncharged act used to prove intent where the police report differs from trial testimony proving perjury and prosecutor coercion