On an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim the State Habeas court have a Us Constitutional Review of allasserted errors andomissions, and thereby the Agregate Prejudice causd by sad grounds, tofaicy decide if the defendants Sixth AMendment guarantee of a fair and adversarial trial was vidated? Specifically, D Stricklandv. Washi, 466 Us 668(198: Evits v. Lucey, 469 US 387 (1985) ; Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 US 249, (1988); and their progeny dictate in their Holdings and Opinion briefs , either expressed or implied in the language of the Court's decisions, that a lower court Must conduct a Cumulative Review/Aggregate Prejudice analysis ofan Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claim wherein the Petitioner has asserted multiple errocs and omissions and specificaly briefeda Cumulative Review claim)to correctly and Constitutionally adjudicate the grounds of the claim?

2. Does a State Coust of Appeals have the intrinsic. authority to abnegate a defendants 5to,6 th, and 14th amendment rights on his First Right of Appeal, due to the defendant baving a state-appointed public defender, and/or amendment tohis Direct Appeal ? Specifically> IN accord with a defendants First Bightof Appeal: I's a defendants us Constitutional Sth amendment and 14 amendment due process rights violated wheceby a state Court of Appeals refuses to accept/file /adjudicate a Defendants timely-filed and procedurally-proficient subomitted Petition For Appeal?

Whether a state habeas court has a constitutional obligation to adjudicate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a cumulative review of all asserted errors and omissions, and thereby evaluate whether the defendant's right to a fair and adversarial trial was violated