GRou oNE: Houston Police Department Detective, Jhn Brooks, testified during
the state's case -in-chief concerning ownership of a cll phone involved
in Pattioner's case. Datective Brooks was allowed to testify about
statements made ty Patitiner's brother concerning ownership of the
cell phone withont objection fram Petitioner's trial cannsel. Did the
caurt of appeals esr in derying
Petitioner's CoA, where Potitiorer
for fting to object to the cnfrntation Clause vidation during
trial?

objection from Patitioner's trid cansel the state introduced, as
bad character evidence, P.
titiorer's membership in a loose krit
graup of neighborhood frit
wends calling them lves the " Fourth
Ward Gang" Though the sto
did not present ary evidence
Jord Gang was known to. engage
tending to show that the Fourt
in any criminal activity, the state trial court fr
hat Petifioner's
menbership in the group was relevent and admissitle undur
when the state failed to present any evidence tending to show
specific criminal activity, was trid cannsds failure to diject
to the trial carts admission of ptitiomer's menbership in
the grop as relevant evidence ofbad character and admissitle
under Dowson ineffective assistance of counsel ?.

Petticner's apallate councal filed an Anders Brief
to the state Court of appeals. Howeter, Connsel failed to
Send Pattiner a copy of the brief, faled to inform
Petitioner that he had the sight to fle a brief on his
own bealf, failed toinfm Petitioner of his right to
review the ceeord, and failed to comply with the
Mandates setaut by this Court in Anders v. Califorrian
87 S. ct. 1396 (1967). Did the District Caurt violate
"educatin"burdens to the stat court ofappeals in
Pttioners ineffective assistance ofopult coun cla?

Whether the court of appeals erred in denying petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to object to the confrontation clause violation during trial, and whether the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's habeas corpus petition