at 761, 760 P.2d at 1177. This Court has long adhered to the proposition that tactical or strategic decisions of trial counsel will not be second-guessed on appeal unless those decisions are based on inadequate preparation, ignorance of relevant law, or other shortcomings capable of objective evaluation. Howard v. State, 126 Idaho 231, 233, 880 P.2d 261, 263 (Ct.App.1994). A. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel 1. Failure to communicate Thomas argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to c that Thomas properly preserved this claim by arguing it before the district court. The Idaho appellate courts have recognized the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to communicate. See, e.g., Parrott v. State, 117 Idaho 272, 275, 787 P.2d 258, 261 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. State, 125 Idaho 294, 297, 870 P.2d
holding that joness application was insufficient because it did not indicate how communication with counsel would have affected trial or how he would have proceeded differently holding that speculation as to how the evidence might have been beneficial was not enough holding that the failure of the appellant to discuss in the opening brief an issue on which the trial court might have relied as a basis for its judgment  results in an affirmance of that judgment holding that an experts report failed to establish the standard of care when it did not clarify how soon is soon  what would be considered an appropriate disposition  and how any other procedure would have reduced delay holding that summary disposition was appropriate without some indication in the record as to how further consultation might have affected the results at trial