With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of temporary insanity, trial counsel were not deficient for failing to further investigate and pursue the defense. See Sawyers v. State, 724 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (evidence showing the defendant was intoxicated and nothing more does not justify submission of an issue on temporary insanity, and refusal to submit such charge in mitigation of punishment is not error); Ex parte Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (counsel’s failure to investigate the facts of a case constitutes ineffectiveness if the result is that any viable defense available to the accused was not advanced). We conclude that, had counsel requested an instruction on temporary insanity as a mitigating factor, it would have been properly denied. See Hart v. State, 537 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, because applicant knew his

A: holding that the evidence at trial showed hart was aware that what he was doing was wrong
B: holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed
C: holding that clearly established means the contours of the right were so clear at the time the officials acted that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right
D: holding that willfully violating the prohibition on engaging in business as a brokerdealer or agent without registering with the state means the defendant acted intentionally in the sense that he was aware of what he was doing
A.