Whether the lower court erred by holding that the prejudice standard applying to ineffective assistance of counsel claims under Strickland v. Washington is applicable to the defendant's claim that his counsel usurped his right to testify

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the lower court erred by holding that the prejudice standard applying to ineffective assistance of counsel claims under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) is applicable to Mr. Hartsfield’s claim that his counsel usurped his exercise of his right to testify in his own defense and in condoning the purported state court requirement that a defendant make a contemporaneous, on the record assertion of his right to testify in the face of being silenced by his counsel? 2. Whether the lower court erred in declining to certify for appeal the issue of whether state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in denying Mr. Hartsfield’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call William “Billy” Thompson to testify on Hartsfield’s behalf, where Thompson could have refuted testimony from the State’s witness that Hartsfield’s co-defendant had him dispose of the murder weapon and where Thompson’s testimony to the co-defendant’s jury led to the co-defendant’s acquittal? i