(1) whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as the
ultimate factfinder in Texas habeas corpus proceedings
abused its discretion and erred wher it derled Pettoners
State Application For wrt of Habeas Corpus on the
merits. without the appellate count first renarding the
couse to the trial count the original foctfinder in Texas
habeas Corpus proceedings. To afford the Trial Judge to
make writter findings of fact and conclusions of law.so
the appellate count would have a foctual basis to base
its determination on. In vidlation of the u.s.l4 th
amerdment.

(2) its discretion wher it failed to afford petitinen a hearing as
promulgated by this court in Townserd v sain 3n2 us. 298
(1963) wher it was undisputed that petitioner had alleged
facts,ftruewould entie him to relief. Before denying
Petitioner's state Application For wsit of Habeas Corpus onthe
merits. In violation of the u.s. 1lth Amerdmert.

(3) whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision
derying Petitioner's Brady claim was djectively unreasonable
in light of the materiality of the 'Butcher knife: which was
the instrumertality of pethtroner's self- deferse theory. Porsuant
to Brady v Maryland 373 us.83 C1963): Kyles v whitley 115
S.Ct 155S ( 1995)

Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion and erred in denying Petitioner's State Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus on the merits without the appellate court first considering the findings of the trial court