Whether the Ninth Circuit's opinion deferred to the state court's finding that counsel was not ineffective under Strickland, despite counsel's failure to raise a relevant argument that would have resulted in a new trial for the petitioner

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Twelve days after Mr. Mesta’s appellate brief was filed, the Oregon Supreme Court took review of a legal principle that was at issue in Mr. Mesta’s case. His appellate attorney knew of the Oregon Supreme Court litigation, but inexplicably failed to take action to include all of the relevant arguments in Mr. Mesta’s brief, despite not knowing which way the Oregon Supreme Court would rule. Had the argument been raised, Mr. Mesta would have won a new trial. The state court found that counsel was not ineffective under Strickland because the law was not settled in Mr. Mesta’s favor at the time counsel filed his brief. Did the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which deferred to the state court’s finding that counsel was not ineffective, controvert this Court’s well-established law which includes advocacy as a component of the Sixth Amendment? i