(1) Whether the Texas Count of Criminal Appecls and individual judges thereof as the ultimate factfinders in Texas habeas corpus proceeding abused their discretion and erred wher they ardlor the count deried Petitioners State Application For wrt of Habeas Corpus on the merits without the Appellate Count ard judges thereof first remarding the cause to the trial cowrt the original factfinder in Texas Habeas Corpus Proceedings . To Afford the Trial Judge to make written findings of fact ard conclusions of law.so the appellate count would a factual basis to base its final determination on. In vidation of the u.S. 1uth Amerdmert.

(2) whether the Texas count of criminal Appeals and individual judges thereof abused their discretion. wher the court ardlor the individual judges thereot failed and ths erred by not affording petitioner a hearing as promulgated by this court in Townsend v Soin 3n2 u.s. 293 (1963). wher it was undisputed that Petitioner hard alleged facts,if true, would ertitte him to celiet. Before the court andlor individual judges therecf dened petitioness state Application For writ of Habeas Corpus on the merits. In violation ofthe us. luth Amerdmert.

Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and individual judges thereof acted as the ultimate fact-finders (a Texas habeas corpus proceeding) by denying Petitioner's state application for writ of habeas corpus on the merits without the appellate court and purposes thereof, thereby demanding the cause be sent to the trial court, the original fact-finder, in Petitioner's habeas corpus proceedings, so the trial judge could make written findings of fact and conclusions of law for the appellate court to have a factual basis to base its final determination on a violation of the U.S. 6th Amendment