Does a state's initial-review post-conviction collateral proceedings meet constitutional standards when those proceedings fail to provide a prisoner the opportunity to gather, present, and consideration of evidence in support of an ineffective assistance of counsel at trial claim?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED GROUND ONE: DOES A STATE'S INITIAL-REVIEW POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS MEET CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS WHEN THOSE PROCEEDINGS FAIL TO PROVIDE A PRISONER THE OPPORTUNITY TO GATHER, PRESENT, AND CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT TRIAL GDAIM, FOR WHICH THE INTITIAL-REVIEW COLLATERAL ; PROCEEDINGS IS THE FIRST MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT TRIAL CLAIM? GROUND TWO: WAS PETITIONER'S TRIAL COUNSEL AND CO-COUNSEL ; : INEFFECTIVE DURING EITHER THE GUILT/INNOCENCE PHASE OR SENTENCING PHASE OF THE TRIAL, PURSUANT TO STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 688 (1984); AND, IF NOT, DOES STRICKLAND NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO ADDRESS SITUATIONS WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL IS UNAVAILABLE AS A WITNESS? 4 } . ;