the record to reach a determination of whether Horton was properly found guilty of theft of property or failure to appear, because Rule 37.1 does not afford a convicted defendant a means to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. Chatmon, 2016 Ark. 126, 488 S.W.3d 501. Next, Horton contended in his petition that the trial court should have considered his claims “individually and collectively.” Even if he had not stated the allegations in entirely conclusory terms, it is well settled that a court is not required to recognize cumulative error in assessing allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Noel, 342 Ark. 35, 26 S.W.3d 123; see also Pedraza v. State, 2016 Ark. 85, 485 S.W.3d 686 (per curiam); State v. Hardin, 347 Ark. 62, 60 S.W.3d 397 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Horton argues in his brief that the
holding error was structural because of the difficulty of assessing the effect of the error holding cumulative error not reversible if it is more probably harmless than not holding that to demonstrate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel petition must establish that the alleged error was prejudicial in fact holding that errors not rising to level of plain error are to be considered in assessing cumulative error holding that it was reversible error for the trial court to consider cumulative error in assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel