Respondent-appellant appeals the U.S. District Court’s order granting David Decker habeas relief from an Oregon State felony murder conviction with burglary as the predicate felony offense. The District Court granted relief on three claims under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Claim 1(B) addresses defense trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of assault. The District Court’s review of this claim is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AED-PA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court held that the Oregon state court decision constituted an unreasonable application of Stñckland and granted habeas relief on claim 1( (1976) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The District Court also granted habeas relief
holding that under oregon law a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised in the initial habeas proceeding holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record recognizing claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel usually must be raised in collateral proceeding recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be resolved by the facts in the record and must be pursued in an action for habeas corpus