a whole,” Cronic does not apply. Bell, 535 U.S. at 697, 122 S.Ct. 1843; see also Hooks, 19 P.3d at 317-18 (noting trial counsel used the evidence presented at trial to argue the prosecution had not proven Hooks guilty of murder); infra Section rV.A.2.e. (discussing lack of prejudice flowing from trial counsel’s deficient opening statement). Accordingly, this court moves on to consider whether the specific acts or omissions identified by Hooks entitle him to relief under the standard set out in Strickland. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (“A convicted defendant making a claim of ineffective assistance must identify the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment.”); Cronic, 466 U.S. at 666, 104 S.Ct. 2039 (<HOLDING>). 2. Pre-Trial Motion Practice Hooks begins
holding that affidavit of appellate counsel summarizing conversations with trial counsel in which trial counsel admitted making errors is hearsay and cannot establish ineffective assistance claim holding that absent evidence counsel failed to function in any meaningful sense as the governments adversary a petitioner can make out a claim of ineffective assistance only by pointing to specific errors made by trial counsel recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel 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 that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel