WHETHER THE ADHERENCE TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE
LAW IS NOT MANDATE BY A FEDERAL LAW UNDER AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE STATUTE OF CONVICTION THAT
"VIOLATE DUE PROCESS. ART. I, 9, FLA. CONST. ACCORD U.S. CONST.
AMEND. XIV", DOES THE POLICY OF EXHAUSTION IN FEDERAL
HABEAS CORPUS ACTIONS, REQUIRE THE EXHAUSTION OF
INADEQUATE REMEDIES?(1)

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT PRECEDENT IN ROSE V. LUNDY, 455
U.S. 509, 522, 102 S. CT. 1198, 71 L. ED. 2D 379 (1982). DOES THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE PETITION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO ALLOW EXHAUSTION AND THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS
INCORRECT IN NOT INQUIRING WHETHER A "SUBSTANTIAL
SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" HAD BEEN
PROVED ?(2)

Whether the exhaustion of inadequate remedies in federal habeas corpus actions requires dismissal of a petition under an unconstitutional state statute that violates due process