to be a strategic choice. The court dispensed with the argument that defense counsel should have objected to the foundation for the State’s DNA expert’s testimony by stating that the record would not have supported such an objection. “The record reflects that the expert testified about the DNA testing that she performed herself, and she did not testify about the results of tests performed by another laboratory.” Ibid. Both of these conclusions are reasonable and supported by the record. As discussed above, strategic choices by defense counsel, when reasonable, do not amount to defective performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. And defense counsel does not perform defectively by failing to make a meritless objection. Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 413 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The petitioner is not entitled to a writ of
holding that there can be no constitutional deficiency in  counsels failure to raise meritless issues holding that an appellant has no standing to raise a due process issue where he has not shown that the alleged deficiency in the notice had any connection in fact with his own failure to seek review of the denial of his claim holding no jurisdiction when trial court granted extension because it found deficiency even though it was not same deficiency complained of by appellant in his motion to dismiss holding failure to preserve issues below results in waiver even of constitutional issues holding that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was valid where it determined a deficiency in a different type of tax than did the earlier deficiency notice