127 Idaho 685, 687, 905 P.2d 86 (1995) (applying Strickland standard to petitioner’s claim that counsel’s failure to file petition for discretionary review with state Supreme Court constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). At a hearing before the habeas court, the petitioner testified that after this court had affirmed his conviction, he telephoned his attorney and asked her to file a petition for certification with our Supreme Court. Appellate counsel did not file the petition. Relying on Sekou v. Warden, 216 Conn. 678, 690, 583 A.2d 1277 (1990), the habeas court determined that an appellate attorney’s failure to seek discretionary review of an unmeritorious claim would not constitute conduct falling below the level of reasonably competent representation. See id. (<HOLDING>); see also Williams v. Manson, 195 Conn. 561,
holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that petitioner did not procedurally default his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal holding that appellate counsel is not required to raise meritless issues on appeal holding that appellate counsels failure to raise unmeritorious claim on direct appeal was not considered conduct failing below level of reasonably competent representation holding claim of alleged brady violation waived on collateral appeal for failure to raise it at trial or on direct appeal