a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be brought for the first time on post-conviction, but only if it requires fact-finding outside of the direct appeal record .... ” (emphasis added and citations omitted)); Turrentine v. State of Oklahoma, 965 P.2d 985, 987-88 (Okla.Crim.App.) (“In Propositions II and IV, [Petitioner] argues he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.... Despite the procedural bar of res judicata, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be brought for the first time on post-conviction, but only if it requires fact-finding outside of the direct appeal record.” (emphasis added)), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 624, 142 L.Ed.2d 562 (1998). Cf. United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1242-43 (10th Cir.1995) (in banc), (<HOLDING>) Turning then to the second prong of Kimmelman,
holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo holding ineffectivetrialassistance claim may be brought in 28 usc  2255 proceeding regardless of whether claim could have been raised on direct appeal holding that an ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under  2255 whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal holding that the fact that an ineffectiveness claim is raised and adjudicated on direct appeal will not procedurally bar an ineffectiveness claim in a proceeding under 28 usc  2255 where new reasons are advanced in support of that claim holding ineffectiveness cannot be raised for first time on appeal