Was Petitioner's 94 year sentence for rape related charges, based only on accuser's testimony, in violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process rights warrant habeas relief when the state violated trial court's Order on Discovery and withheld Brady materials to: exculpatory expert medical evidence, impeaching evidence in the accuser's past rape allegations. not disclosed the blocked by 412 Rape Shield law conflict, no pre-trial disclosure of 40 3/404(b) evidence or of state held rebuttle evidence-?

Was trial counsel constitutionally ineffective under this Court's standards in Strickland by failing to investi gate and present to the jury exculpatory expert medical evidence; use impeaching-, rebuttle and mitigating evidence because he believed the case was oier at nolle prosequi order and never - investigated or gained rebuttle evidence against 403/404(b) exhibit; and did appellate counsel fail to raise these significant claims on appeal, which establishes excuses for procedural default?

Did the lower courts commit reversible err:denying Petitioner § 2254 and state Post-conviction motions without conductiØng an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual disputes, conflicts with issues of law, sentencing errors and denial of every discovery request as "moot" because the courts held no hearings?

Was Petitioner's 94 year sentence for rape related charges based only on accuser's testimony, in violation of Fifth-Amendment-Due-Process, warrant habeas-relief when the state violated trial-court's-order-on-Discovery and withheld Brady-materials to exculpatory-evidence, impeaching-evidence, 412-Rape-Shield-law-conflict, 403/404(b)-evidence