Was counsel ineffective under Strickland, and did the ineffectiveness present a Martinez claim in the petitioner's appellate proceedings?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Was counsel.ineffetive within the meaning of Strickland, and did the ineffectiveness present a Martinez clain7itrthé petitioner's appellate proceedings? 2. Did a Brady violation occur within the context of the new statements made after the discovery process, and used in trial? Did counsel have an obligation to object or otherwise move to exclude the statements as being outside the scope of discovery? 3. Was trial counsel ineffective within the meaning of Strickland for “misplacing the trial record" and and notes, which disallowed appellate counsel to properly perfect the petitioner's direct appeal? 4. Without an accurate record on direct appeal, could it be presumed that the petitoner’s Rule 61 motion for post-conviction relief in the Superior Court was futile and fatally flawed, due to trial and appellate counsel's ineffectiveness? : Type text here