Does a state's initial-review post-conviction collateral procedures meet constitutional standards when they fail to provide prisoners the opportunity to gather, present, and have considered evidence in support of an ineffective assistance of counsel at trial claim

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED @gaun : GROUND ONE: DOES-A STATE'S INITIAL-REVIEW POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL PROCEDURES MEET CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS WHEN THOSE PROCEDURES FAIL TO PROVIDE PRISONERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GATHER, PRESENT, AND CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT TRIAL CLAIM, FOR WHICH THE INITIAL-REVIEW COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS WAS THE FIRST MENAINGFUL : OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OFF : COUNSEL AT TRIAL CLAIM? GROUND TWO: WAS SALAZAR'S TRIAL COUNSELS INEFFECTIVE DURING VOIR DIRE AND IN FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR COUNT II ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS; AND, SHOULD THIS COURT'S DECISIONS RELATED TO TRIAL COUNSEL'S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE (i.e. WIGGINS) APPLY TO COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO SUFFICEENTLY QUESTION PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE?