Was defense counsel ineffective for consenting to the prosecutor's extremely untimely request for a DNA sample?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. WAS DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR CONSENTING TO THE PROSECUTOR'S EXTREMELY UNTIMELY REQUEST FOR A DNA SAMPLE--A MOVE THAT THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINE DIDN'T GREATLY PREJUDICE ME, EVEN UNDER FEDERAL STANDARDS. STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668,694. U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI. XIV. ( Ir. UNDER FEDERAL STANDARDS, DID TRIAL COURT VIOLATE MY DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION BY PRECLUDING DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A KEY WITNESS ABOUT A PRIOR ARREST. CONTRARY TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FINDINGS. DELAWARE V. VAN ARSDALL, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679. U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI. XIV. III. DID THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE PROSECUTOR'S REMARKS, THAT THE APPELLATE DIVISION DEEMED HARMLESS, DEPRIVE ME OF MY DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, UNDER FEDERAL STANDARDS. U.S. CONST., AMEND. XIV. n c