When does counsel's pursuit of a legally and factually irrelevant defense theory rebut the presumption of competence and reasonable trial strategy?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED When this Court established a presumption of competence and reasonable trial strategy in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), did it create an irrebuttable bar to performance competency challenges in the ineffective assistance of counsel context? If the answer to that question is no, when a record shows that counsel based a defense on convincing the jury of a fact both legally and factually irrelevant, has counsel been shown to have misunderstood the law? And when counsel has been shown to have misunderstood the law, is the presumption of competence and reasonable trial strategy overcome? ii