to the merits, we address some procedural issues. First, as noted, Graham alleges in part that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He specifically alleges that trial counsel failed to adequately prepare for trial, provided incorrect advice as to the validity of the habitual offender allegation filed by the State, and acted improperly in allegedly advising Graham in the middle of his trial that "the jury has you already convicted." Appellant's Br. p. 7. Repeatedly throughout the PCR court's findings and the State's brief on appeal, it is stated that Graham failed to support his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim because he did not attempt to procure his trial attorney's attendance at the PCR hearing. See Dickson v. State, 533 N.E.2d 586, 589 (Ind.1989) (<HOLDING>). Those statements by the PCR court and State
holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that trial counsel will not be convicted of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to engage in futile acts 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 holding that where a pcr petitioner fails to procure the testimony of trial counsel at pcr hearing pcr court may infer that trial counsel would not have corroborated claims of ineffective assistance holding that a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review