I.
Did the Texas Appellate Court(s) so far depart from the accepted
and usual course of judicial proceedings by chosing to ignore
its own rules and procedures which in the manners of its
action is depriving, hindering, and impeding upon petitioner's
Constitutionally protected Due Process rights to have, in
accordance to them rules and procedures, a full, fair, and
adequate proceeding(s) before the tribunal as to call'for' an
exercise of this court's supervisory power?
A. Was the petitioner deprived of his right to have an amended
motion for new trial properly filed and presented to the
courts; trial and appellate?
B. Did the appellate court(s) enter judgments without first
curing a fundamental error of procedural right?
C. Was the appellate court's decision to dismiss petitioner's
notice of appeal from the July 13, 2022 ruling on the
amended motion for new trial an error/abuse of discretion?
D. Does the district clerk's action have a bearing on
petitioner's Due Process rights when a deputy clerk
therefrom fails to transfer an electronically filed
document, filed online by counsel, into the defendant's
electronic or paper case file?

II.
Did the Texas Appellate Court(s) so far depart from the accepted
and usual course of judicial proceedings as to deprive petitioner
his right to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claim on
direct appeal as to call for an exercise of this court's
supervisory power?

III.
Is Article 11.O7 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
uncostitutional in nature in the manner that the State forbids
applicants/appellants to raise sufficiency of evidence to the
grounds of innocence on collateral review?

IV.
Is Texas Penal Code § 22.01 (b)(2)(B) unconstitutional when
it charges an offender with an aggravated Class A misdemeanor
once the relevant relationship is removed from the equation
even though there is no Texas Penal Code that supports an
offense as a Class A misdeneanor arrgavated simple assault?

Did the Texas Appellate Court(s) depart from judicial-proceedings to deprive petitioner's due-process rights