1. WHEN PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IS DISCRETIONARY BY THE
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, DID THE COURT ABUSE ITS
DISCRETION IN NOT REVIEWING A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WHERE
MORE THAT 300 POINTS OF ERROR HAD ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED
INCLUDING NO INDIGENT RECORD PROVIDED IN WHICH THE PETITIOER
/DEFENDANT AND HER ATTORNEY HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT AT ANY
PORTION THREE OF THE JURY TRIALS?

2. AFTER 1981, WHEN VERNON'S WAS AMENDED ANN. TEXAS CCP ART. 42.03
WAS AMENDED WHICH STATED THAT "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE
42.14 SENTENCE SHALL BE PRONOUNCED IN THE DEFENDANT'S PRESENCE.
PETITIONER WAS NEVER SERVED WITH THE INDICTMENT, MAGISTRATED,
PARTICIPATE IN ANY PORTION OF THE TRIAL INCLUDING BEING PRESENT AT
THE SENTENCING; WAS THIS STATUTE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND PRIOR RULINGS
OF THIS COURT? DID THE ABSENCE OF THE ATTORNEY AND THE
DEFENDANT AT ALL PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL VIOLATE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND SIXTH AMENDMENT OF RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

3. DID THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE BASED ON FOUR INDICTMENTS
WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT DEPRIVE THE 10th COURT OF
APPEALS OF JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT'S APPEALS AS WELL AS
VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION AD DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14™
AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

4. DOES THE TRIAL, CONVICTION AND SENTENCING OF THE DEFENDANT IN
ABSTENTIA BASED ON FOUR INDICTMENTS WITHOUT INFORMING THE
DEFENDANT; DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE
PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE 14™ AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND VIOLATE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT
TO LIBERTY AND TO EARN A LIVING?

5. DID THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR IN DENYING THE
PETITIONER AN OUT OF TIME HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE/ WRIT OF HABEAS FOR
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF HER 5th AMENDMENT RIGHT
NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF HER RIGHT AND OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A
LIVING?

6. DID THE 10th COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DENYING APPLICANTS MOTION
TO REFER THE CASE BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO CORRECT
DISCREPANCIES IN THE RECORD, IN COMPLETING THE RECORD WITHOUT
INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT AND HER ATTORNEY AND RULING ON AN
INCOMPLETE RECORD IN VIOLATION OF HER SIXTH

Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion in not reviewing a petition for discretionary review and writ of habeas corpus for motion for new trial