With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”). This conclusion is all the more appropriate given the relative strength of the issues that Baker’s counsel did raise on appeal. See Thompson, 598 F.3d at 285 (stating that appellate counsel is ineffective only if a Blakely claim would have been “clearly stronger than [the] issues that counsel did present”). Although Baker’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, the Second District found at least some merit in Baker’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims, noting that “evidence presented at trial could have supported an instruction for [the lesser included offense of] aggravated assault” had counsel requested one, and that counsel had called a witness whose testimony “was not helpful to the defense.” Cf. id. at 287 (<HOLDING>). 2. Prejudice Even if Baker could show that

A: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
B: holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate
C: holding that the failure to raise a futile issue does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel
D: holding failure to raise blakely claim was not ineffective performance where appellate counsel raised several plausible arguments and did not merely assert a perennial loser such as a sufficiencyoftheevidence claim quoting benning 345 fedappx at 158
D.