Did the petitioner's counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to call, interview, and subpoena a witness?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Initially the Petitioner asserted two constitutional violation cTdins of his Sixth Amendment right: The first being that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call, interview and subpoenaing a witness whom she was made aware of prior to trial. The omitted witness would have provided testimony regarding evidence relevant to the case. Secondly, prior to trial, the Petitioner had made three attempts to terminate appointed counsel's representation due to a complete breakdown in communication and a lack of trust. Because the Petitioner filed a motion expressing his dissatisfaction . with counsel creates a conflict that was never resolved or responded to by the court during or throughout the proceedings. The case thus presents the following questions: : I. THE FIRST CIRCUIT'S MISAPPLICATION OF THE STRICKLAND STANDARD WARRANTS THIS COURT'S ATTENTION II. THE DECISION OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF OTHER ; CIRCUITS III. THE FIRST CIRCUIT'S NEGLECTFULNESS OF THE "CONFLICT-FREE" CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WARRANTS THIS COURT'S ATTENTION IV. THE STATE COURT OPINION BELOW LACKS A PLAIN STATEMENT THAT IT IS BASED ON A ; PROCEDURAL DEFAULT AND THEREFORE THE MERITS ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION QUESTION SHOULD BE REACHED i