I. HAVE THE TENNESSEE CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED AN IMPORTANT
FEDERAL QUESTION IN A WAY THAT CONFLICTS WITH RELEVANT DECISIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BY DECIDING THAT A FARETTA COMPLIANT
COLLOQUY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE GIVEN AND CAN BE HELD IN ABEYANCE FOR
SEVERAL MONTHS AND THEN THIS FARETTA COMPLIANT COLLOQUY CAN BE
DENIED WITHOUT ANY DIALOGUE WITH THE PETITIONER WHEN THE PETITIONER
RE-IMPLEMENTS THE MOTION TO PROCEED PRO SE THE DAY BEFORE TRIAL? ARE
THE TENNESSEE CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW BY
DENYING THE PETITIONER THE OPPORTUNITY TO RENEW HIS REQUEST TO
PROCEED PRO SE THE DAY BEFORE TRIAL?

DOES PETIONER CASE CALL FOR A REVERSAL IF THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO
PROMPTLY ADDRESS THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE AND
DURING THIS PERIOD OF DELAY THE PETITIONER AND HIS COUNSEL CONFLICTS
ON QUESTIONS OF STRATEGY WERE NOT RESOLVED? HAVE Is' ,6,h,14,h,AMENDMENT
RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER BEEN VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE REFUSED
THE PETITIONER TO ADDRESS PROCEEDING PRO SE OR EXPLAIN WHAT THE
CONFLICT WAS BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND APPOINTED COUNSEL BEFORE
MAKING A RULING?

II. HAVE THE CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT OF TENNESSEE APPLIED A PROCEDURAL
BAR THAT IS NON-EXISTENT IN TENNESSEE RULES OR CODES BY STATING A
PETITIONER IS NOT ALLOWED TO PROCEED PRO SE THE DAY BEFORE TRIAL EVEN
IF THEY INVOKE THIS RIGHT PRIOR TO TRIAL AND VOIRE DIRE WHEN NO STATE
LAW OR PROCEDURAL RULE EXISTS THAT DEFINES WHEN YOU MUST MOTION TO
PROCEED PRO SE? HAS PETIONER SATISFIED ANY TIMING ELEMENT OF
PROCEEDING PRO SE BY HAVING A WRITTEN WAIVER OF COUNSEL ON RECORD
SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE TRIAL?

III. JALEN WALKERS RECANTING STATEMENT AND VIDEO WAS CORRECT FOR THE
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL HEARING AND THAT THE TRIAL COURTS RULING THAT IT
WAS A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS PETITION WAS INCORRECT AS A MATTER OF
LAW (Appeals Judgment, Appendix D, p.62). WHEN THE TRIAL COURTS LAW
DETERMINATION WAS INCORRECT AS POINTED OUT IN THE APPEALS JUDGMENT.
DOES THIS NOT SUPPORT THE DETERMINATION TO ALLOW ANOTHER MOTION
FOR NEW TRIAL OR TRIAL? THE APPEALS COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIAL
COURT IS WHERE THIS EVIDENCE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RULED ON AND IF THE
PETITIONER WAS DENIED TO PROPERLY PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE ON THIS
MATTER BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT WRONGFULLY DIRECTED THE PETITIONER
THAT THIS ISSUE WAS A CORAM NOBIS HEARING AND THE TRIAL COURT COULD
NOT RULE ON

Whether the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals violated federal law by denying a criminal defendant's right to proceed pro se and failing to promptly address his request for self-representation before trial