DID THE STATE OF TEYAS PROPERLY APPLY THE PROCEDURAL BAR (STATUE OF LIMITATIONS iN WRITNO. W89-85S62T (C-D) PURSUANT TO ART. 11.O7(4 OFTHE CODE OFCRiM. PROC. WHEN EXTRAORDINARY CIRWUMSTANCES EXIST TO HAVE TRIGGURED EQUITABLE TOLLONG?

2. VIOLATING PETIDONER'S DUE PROCESS RIGNTS AT POST -TEIAL JUROQ'S HEARING WHERE ONLY 9 OFTHE IZ JUROR'S WERE CAULED UPON TO ANSWER TO THE TRUSTWORTHIUESS OF TMEIR VERDICCT?

3. INFORMATION OF PETITIONER'S PENDING CMARGES CAPITAL MURDER 6 AGGSAUATED ROBERY) TO BE POSTED TO THE PUbLIC WhICH JNFECTED THE EUTIRE JURY PAWEL PRE-TRIAL - ANERROR NEUEN BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION UNTEL AFTER TRAL. WAS PETITIONER'S SIXTM AMENOMAENT RIGMT TO EFFECTILE TREAL COUNSEL VIELATEO IN AN ACCUMULATION OF TNIAL COUNSEL ERROR'S?

B WAS APPELATE COUNSEL JOHN D. NATION DOLLAS, TK.) INEFFECTIVE BY FILING ONLY ONE(1DERRON IU MEEKS V. STATE NO. O5-GD-DOS53-CR(TEXAPP. - DALLAS MAR. 14TM I991, PEt.REfd)?

S. SHOUD EQUITABLE TOLLDNG HAVE BEEN TRIGGCRED BY EITHER JHE STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS WHEN IN LOI6 PETITIONER FOOND OUT THAT HIS COURT APPOINTED APPELATE ATTORNEY LIED TO HIM BACK INS /99O CONCERNIDNG THE FACT THAT A RECORD OF THE POST -TRIAL JUROR'S TESTOMONY DOES IN FACT EXEST WHICH IS A BASIS FOR MANY CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS INCLUDING: JUCOR MISCOUOUCT - JUQY BIAS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL ANO

Whether the procedural bar statute was properly applied