assistance claim relating to failure to investigate competency, the Petitioner must show that counsel acted deficiently and that there was resulting prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Counsel acts deficiently, if he does not act as a reasonably objective attorney would under the circumstances. Savino, 82 F.3d at 599. “An attorney’s duty, of course, does not mandate the exploration of the issues of sanity and/or competency in every instance.” Wood v. Zahradnick, 430 F.Supp. 107, 111 (E.D. Va. 1977), aff'd, 578 F.2d 980 (4th Cir. 1978). However, when “the facts known and available, or with minimal diligence accessible, to defense counsel raise a reasonable doubt as to a defendant’s mental condition, counsel has an affirmative obligation to make further inquiry.” Id. (<HOLDING>). If such reasonable doubt is raised, “a lawyer
holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that counsel did not sufficiently prepare for the penalty phase and defendant suffered prejudice because counsel failed to adequately present evidence of child abuse the defendants bizarre behavior signaling serious mental disorientation and pri or hospitalization for mental illness holding that there was ineffective assistance because counsel did not take even the first step of requesting a mental examination when the defendants rape and robbery of a sixtysevenyearold woman for no reason was of such a bizarre nature as to call into question the petitioners mental condition