David Harold Else, Jr. v. Texas

1.) WHETHER THE GATEWAY ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD, UNDER TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (TCCP) ARTICLE 1 1 . □ 7 §A(a)(27', APPLIED BY THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, TO REACH ITS OUDMENT OF DISMISSAL, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS COURT'S. OPINION IN SCHLUP V. DELO, 115 S. CT. 851(1995) ANU FEDERAL LAW, IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER (ELSE) RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS:

1. ) WHETHER THE STATE HABEAS PROCESS,THAT LED TO THE DISMISSAL OF ELSE' 5 -STATE HABEAS APPLICATION, WAS DEFECTIVE, IN VIOLATION OF.ELBE'S- RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW:

2. ) WHETHER ELSE MADE A SUFFICIENT' PROCEDURAL GATEWAY ACTUAL INNOCENCE, AND BUT-FOR U.S. C0NSTITUT10NAL . VI 0LAT10N , SHOWING TO RECEIVE A MERITS REVIEW OF HIS BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83(1963); Claim; A.) WHETHER ELSE MADE A SUFFICIENT PROCEDURAL GATEWAY ACTUAL INNOCENCE, AND BUT FOR U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, SHOWING TO RECEIVE A MERITS REVIEW OF HIS MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 29A- U.S. 103(1935) FALSE EVIDENCE CLAIM.