689 P.2d at 185. 6 . Given our holding on counsel’s statutory duties and the lack of any record regarding the other acts alleged to show ineffective assistance of counsel, we do not address those other allegations. Nothing in our opinion precludes the trial court from addressing those alleged acts if Appellant raises those issues on remand and the trial court does not otherwise order a new hearing based on Appellant's ability to appear remotely at the earlier hearing or hearing counsel’s alleged failure to comply with his statutory duties. As to any other duties of counsel, we note that there are at least several possible standards to determine effective assistance of counsel in this context. Compare Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648,
holding counsel will be held ineffective if he made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the sixth amendment and such performance prejudiced the defense recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel 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 to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must demonstrate that counsel was constitutionally deficient and as a result defendant was prejudiced