With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Consequently, we deny Jackson’s petition- for writ of habeas corpus and request for a new appeal. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we affirm the denial of relief by the postconviction court, and deny the habeas petition. It is so ordered. POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. CANADY J., concurs in result. 1 . Huffv. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla.1993). 2 . To the extent that this Court has ruled on issues with regard to victim survivors, it has been in the context of victim impact evidence, not victim outreach activities, and whether trial or appellate counsel was ineffective with regard to the failure to object to the admission of such evidence or the trial court's consideration of it. See, e.g., Belcher v. State, 961 So.2d 239, 257 (Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>); Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156, 1179

A: holding appellate counsel was not ineffective for forgoing a claim disputing the admission of victim impact evidence because it had no merit
B: holding that letters from the victims family constituted improper victim impact statements but appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a claim because the jury never saw the letters and thus the claim was without merit
C: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
D: holding that appellate counsel could not be found to have rendered ineffective assistance for failing to raise issues that are without merit
A.