With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". also Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to hear testimony concerning the extraneous offense (see point of error number one), we find that counsel was not ineffective for his failure to object at times where the same or similar testimony was presented to the jury. That is, we find that there is no deficiency in counsel’s failure to convince the trial court in the first instance to exclude relevant testimony regarding appellant’s motive and thus subsequently failed to object when the same or similar testimony was brought forward. See Holland v. State, 761 S.W.2d 307, 318-319 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (<HOLDING>); Bridge, 726 S.W.2d at 566 (because trial

A: holding that trial counsel will not be convicted of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to engage in futile acts
B: holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation
C: holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify
D: holding that counsel was under no obligation to do what would amount to a futile act
D.