Did the TCCA err in holding that the State upheld its "affirmative obligation to not act in a manner that circumvents the [Sixth Amendment] protections afforded the accused," Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 176 (1985), when, without notice to Petitioner's counsel and despite a "no contact" letter barring uncounseled access to Petitioner, the State gave a third-party civilian otherwise unobtainable physical access to Petitioner and then used the statements that civilian elicited from Petitioner as evidence against Petitioner at the penalty phase of his capital murder trial?

Did the TCCA err in holding that the State upheld its 'affirmative obligation to not act in a manner that circumvents the [Sixth Amendment] protections afforded the accused,' Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 176 (1985), when, without notice to Petitioner's counsel and despite a 'no contact' letter barring uncounseled access to Petitioner, the State gave a third-party civilian otherwise unobtainable physical access to Petitioner and then used the statements that civilian elicited from Petitioner as evidence against Petitioner at the penalty phase of his capital murder trial?