1.Is Texas Transportation Code Sect. 724.012 (b.) (3.)(B). (Texas'mandatory blood draw statute) Constitutional as applied, under the Fourth Amendment as interpreted Appendix C, Page 16.

2.Is the Supreme Court ruling Missouri v. McNeely properly applied to Petitioners Direct appeal? Appendix C, Page 1.

3.Is this case distinguishable from Aviles v. State, 132 S.Ct. at 902, a Supreme Court case that was granted Writ of CERTIORARI? Appendix C, Page 7.

4.Was trial attorney, Mark Di Carlo ineffective by raising the Constitutional objection to the blood-evidence (States Exhibit # 2) but failing to object to the test results of the blood-evidence, allowing the illegal evidence in as ruled by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals? Appendix A, Page 9,10.

5.Was trial attorney, Mark DiCarlo ineffective by failing to object to his refusal to contest as ruled by the Texas Court Constitutional Challenge?

6.Did the Judge implicitly Rule on the Fourth Amendment Challenge by relying on the objected to, illegally obtained blood evidence as the sole basis of his verdict of guilt thus, preserving the error Appendix C. pg. App.D.

7.Has the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Missouri V. McNeely created any new law, or bright line rule ment that Mr. Dicarlo based his objections at trial still the (Established and 'Settled') Applicable Law in these Cases? Missouri v. McNeely 569 U.S. (April 17, 2013)@ pg.2.

8.Is it reasonable for the court of Criminal Appeals to take away Petitioners new trial for Mr. DiCarlo's failure to preserve the Fourth Amendment challenge to the warrantless blood draw, Appendix A. Ps. 9 (6-8-2016) and then side with State Attorneys (on 6-6-2018 ruling that DiCarlo had no obligation to Raise or Preserve Such a NovEL Claim?

9.When el Constitution Viatin conviction that relies solely upon illegally obtained blood evidence, or the rights of Mr. Dicarlo's client?

Was the Texas Department of Public Safety Troopers' mandatory blood draw constitutional under the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by Missouri v. McNeely?