I. Whether the decision of the state court that failed to apply the correct
standard of "reasonableness " to assess trial counsel 's conduct under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) is contrary to and/or
involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal
law. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1)
A. Whether failure of the state court to extend the "prevailing professional
norms" legal principle to state criminal procedure rule implemented
to safeguard constitutional right is contrary to and/or involves an
unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Williams
v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 369 @ 407 (2000). 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1) .

II. Whether the decision of the state court to find no violation of Petitioner 's
Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial is contrary to and/or an
unreasonable application of clearly established federal law Coleman v.
Thompson; 501 U.S. 722 (1991). 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1) .
A. Whether the failure of the state court to assess trial counsel 's
conduct that resulted in violation of Petitioner 's right to speedy trial
under correct standard of "reasonableness ' (Strickland, supra) is
contrary to and/or involves an unreasonable application of clearly
established federal law. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1)
B. Whether the decision of the state court that no speedy trial violation
occurred is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in those proceedings. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(2) .

III. Whether the decision of the state court that trial counsel 's performance
was not ineffective assistance of counsel is contrary to and/or involves
an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and too,
is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in those proceedings. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1) & (2).

A. Whether the decision of the state court that trial counsel 's acts of
commission and ommission were not "cause" for violation of Petitioner 's
right to speedy trial is contrary to and/or involves an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law; and is an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in those
proceedings. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1) &
B. Whether the decision of the state court that Petitioner did not
suffer "prejudice " as the result of trial counsel 's "deficient " performance
resulting in violation of right to speedy trial is contrary to and/or
involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal
law. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1)
C. Whether this Court should accord deference to the findings of
the state court or trial counsel 's conduct. 28 U.S.C., § 2254(d)(1);
Strickland, supra
1. Whether the findings of the state court that are contrary to
and/or involve an unreasonable application of

Whether the state court failed to apply the correct standard of 'reasonableness' under Strickland v. Washington