Does the federal constitution's supremacy clause mandate state courts to apply the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal and collateral review?

QUESTION PRESENTED 7 I. DOES THE FEDERAL CONSTETUTION'S ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2 SUPREMACY CLAUSE PRESCRIBE A RULE OF DECISION UNDER INTERPRETATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT PER STRICKLAND ; V._ WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) MANDATING STATE COURTS TO APPLY, ON DIRECT APPEAL AND COLLATERAL REVIEW, THE TWO-PRONG, "REASONABLE TEST AND STANDARDS TO IAC CLAIMS, AND ARE PETITIONER'S DUE : PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH . AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND/OR ARTICLE IV ' PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE VIOLATED BY, ' RESPONDENTS' MORE RESTRICTIVE THREE-PRONG ARGUABLE ' BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND _ IAC TEST AND STANDARDS, SUCH THAT ALL OTHER SUBSTANTIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE FOURTH, SIXTH, TENTH, AND FOURTEENTH . AMENDMENT CLAIMS ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS UNDER THE RUBRIC OF COUNSELS' INEFFECTIVENESS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND UNDER STRICKLAND? ™~ i IN THE SUPREME COURT a OF THE UNITED STATES ; PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. . : ’ . . . OPINION BELOW ' , The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits, incorporating the state collaterali-review court's factual, procedural, and legal findings denying relief under state habeas corpus/Post Conviction Relief Act relief, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9541 et seq., and affirmed by the Pennsylvanina Superior Court at