1299 (Ind.1996). However, the United States Supreme Court recently held that the Virginia Supreme Court had erred in holding that the Lockhart decision had “modified or in some way supplanted the rule set down in Strickland.” Williams v. Taylor, — U.S. -, -, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1512, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). As Hill was based upon Strickland, and our supreme court relied upon Lockhart as modifying Hill, the continued viability of Van Cleave ⅛ holding that a defendant must show “a reasonable probability of acquittal” at trial in order to prevail in a post-conviction attack based on an ineffective assistance claim following a guilty plea has been called into question, as another panel of this court recently noted. See Segura v. State, 729 N.E.2d 594, 596-97 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. pending, (<HOLDING>). Thus, as there may presently be some
holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state holding that van cleave is the law in indiana today and any change in the law as set forth in van cleave must be made by our supreme court holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute holding that affidavits must set forth facts admissible in evidence and explain its conclusions recognizing the test set forth in strickland as clearly established law for aedpa purposes