reasons given regarding Rodriguez’s fifth claim, we find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s denial of Rodriguez’s request for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Rodriguez has not met the two-prong Strickland standard to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Moreover, he has not shown that the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying funds to retain a defense expert or denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. III. Conclusion Accordingly, we affirm the Superio ting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052). This Court is free to assume ineffective representation, or bypass it altogether, "[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, ...” Id. 12 . Holmes v. State, 422 A.2d 338, 339 (Del.1980) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Superi- or Court Criminal Rule
holding that counsels decision not to argue the absurd or burden the jury with the obvious did not amount to ineffective assistance holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding counsels decision to open after the states caseinchief did not amount to a constitutional violation recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states holding single incident of food poisoning did not amount to a violation of prisoners constitutional rights