Mr. Pogue alleged that his trial counsel, William G. Mason, was ineffective and presented 18 specific points of ineffective assistance of counsel to the habeas court. (See Appendix A). Some which were Mr. Mason's failure to investigate, strike bias juror, prepare witnesses to testify, object to several acts of prosecutorial misconduct 2and the jury charge error, etc. The Court of Criminal Appeals has the practice of denying state habeas writs that are not based upon any law, or any law relevant in making a prejudice analysis under the Strickland prejudice standard for its determination for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. This questioned is presented to this Court.

Did the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas err in denying the Petitioner's state habeas writ by deferring to the state habeas court's findings that Petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel —when that decision is not based upon any law, but soley on Mr. Mason's opinion that he was not ineffective?

Whether the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated where trial counsel failed to investigate and present exculpatory evidence, failed to object to improper jury instructions, and failed to adequately cross-examine key witnesses