in determining whether a prisoner may avail himself of an intervening decision, this Court applies our PCR act to determine whether an issue raised on PCR is one warranting relief from waiver based on cause and actual prejudice, as contemplated by 99-39-21(1), or one not proce durally barred, although litigated at trial and on direct appeal, because of the existence of cause and actual prejudice, as contemplated by § 99-39-21(2). Application of this test is based on state law grounds. See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-39-3, 99-39-21(1), and 99-39-21(2) (Supp.1993). Looking at the “cause” requirement, in the case sub judice, Nixon bases his assertion of cause on an intervening decision which espouses a new rule of law. Compare Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (<HOLDING>), with Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96, 106
holding that batson applies to a prosecutors use of peremptory challenges regardless of whether the stricken juror is of the same race as the defendant holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause holding that is not the fact that a jury is all white or all black that violates batson rather it is the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to strike jurors holding that where a defendant does not use all of his or her peremptory challenges the defendant may not complain of prejudice for failure to dismiss prospective jurors holding that a white defendant can object to the exclusion of minority jurors through the use of peremptory challenges