1. Does The Prison Mail Box Rule Announced In Excuse(s) The Filing of Late Notice of Appeals Which were Filed Statutory Dead line?

2. Was The state Court Reliance On Becher v. state, Ggd N.E. 2d ll1s(Ind. 1947) As Its Reason For Refusing To Allow Brady Petitioner To Review The Prosecution's File When Material was Discovered, Contrary To The states And Federal Trial Rules d-37 Concerning Discovery And clearly Brady V. Maryland 373u.s. 83, 10 L.ED.2D 15 s.ct. liss(inas) where these Courts Held That The Due Process e which Is Material Either To Provide The Defense with Evidence Thrugh The To Guilt Or To Panishment, And That Searching Police Report Files May work Out In Practice?

3. Did The Discovery of Which Demonstrates The Fundamental Error Duk To The Knowingly use of Perdury Hickingbsttom Hearing New Trial or An Evidentiary Pursuant to Nafue v. Illindis 360 u.s. 264 (1454), (hbh1 pZL1)?

4. Was Hickingbotton deprived of his sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights To The Effective Assistance of Trial counsel when Counsel failed To Obdect To The Perlured Testimgnial Evidence, and Failure To File A Motion For A New Trial on The Grounds of Prosetuter Misconduct For Concealng Brady Material Which Cauld Have Proven P Petitioners ActualInnokense, Once learning of the states Concealment?

Does the prison mailbox rule announced in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) excuse the late filing of the notice of appeals which were filed in the wrong clerk by the prison law clerk?