Do the requirements of Ohio App.R.26(B) comport with due process where it advises an applicant to include "One of more assignments of error or arguments in support of assignments of error that previously were no considered on the merits in the case by an appellate court or that were considered on an incomplete record because of counsel 's deficient representation. " (App.R.26(B)(2)(c). When filing an assignment of error, without an argument, or an argument without an assignment of error, will not protect the right to he heard in later proceedings because to satisfy 28 USCS 2254(b)(1)(A) and O'Sullivan V Boerckel, 526 U.S.83$(1999) 's exhaustion requirement a petitioner must have presented the same to the state court.

Does the Ohio Supreme Courts sanctioning the 3rd District Court of Appeals failure to consider the extraordinary circumstances alleged deliberate deception of the court and the jury by the unconstitutional, egregious and illegal acts, conduct and omissions by the County Prosecutor through false statements, false testimony, misstating expert testimony. Violate the rudimentary demands of justice, governing the actions of the state by the 14th Amendment in conflict with Darden V Wainwright. 477 U.S. 168 (1986), Berger v United States 295 U,S.28(1935). And the petitioner 's appellate council 's failure to raise the misconduct rise to the level of deficient representation contemplated in Evitts v Lucy 469.387 (1985), and Strickland v Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1986).

Does the Ohio Supreme Courts sanctioning the 3rd District Court of Appeals decision denying petitioner 's motion for delayed reconsideration for being untimely without considering the merits for extraordinary circumstances require by the Rule, violate due process and this courts ' ruling in EVITTS V LUCY. 469 U.S. 387 (1985) that requires states to comport with the demands of due process when it chooses to offer a procedure for redressing grievance?

Question for review #One