WHETHER THE ARKANSAS COURTS APPLIED AN INCORRECT STANDARD FOR RESOLVING PETITIONER WHITESIDE'S CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN SENTENCING BY REQUIRING PROOF THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL ACT OF DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE MUST SATISFY THE PREJUDICE PRONG OF STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), RATHER THAN CONSIDERING, CUMULATIVELY, THE PROBABLE PREJUDICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO COUNSEL'S MULTIPLE ERRORS OR DEFICIENCIES IN PERFORMANCE IN ASSESSING THE TOTALITY OF COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATION.

A. WHETHER STRICKLAND PERMITS CHARACTERIZATION OF PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES BY COUNSEL AS MATTERS OF STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING WHEN COUNSEL ADMITS THAT ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES WERE NEVER RECOGNIZED OR GIVEN CONSIDERATION.

B. WHETHER DETERMINATION OF PRECEDENT CONTROLLING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW OF STATE PETITIONER'S CLAIMS PURSUANT TO STRICKLAND IS ALTERED BY AEDPA.

Whether the Arkansas courts applied an incorrect standard for resolving petitioner Whiteside's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in sentencing,