Did the trial court use the incorrect standard to review the issues and thus incorrectly apply the fact to the law under Strickland?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the trial court use the incorrect standard to review the issues and thus incorrectly apply the fact to the law under Strickland? 2. Is the court’s decision then both “contrary to” or involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court? 3. Was the state court decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding? 4. Is the state court’s failure to make the requisite findings of fact and law sufficient reason to hold a federal evidentiary hearing?