With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 89 . 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 90 . Ploof II, 856 A.2d 539, 541 (Del.2004). 91 . Opening Br. 18 ("Many issues were raised or came up during Mr. Ploof’s trial, which [sic] could have been raised on appeal. See appellate counsel deficiency issues raised supra and infra."). 92 . See supra Part III.C.3. 93 . Although we do not reach whether Appellate Counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, we note that other courts have rejected Ploof's contention that his counsel's failure to appeal all "arguably meritorious” issues constitutes per se deficient performance. See, e.g., Fautenberry v. Mitchell, 515 F.3d 614, 642 (6th Cir.2008) (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 752, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983)) (<HOLDING>). While the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment

A: holding in a death penalty case that the mere fact that appellate counsel confined their appeal to seven issues does not establish that counsel were ineffective it is often best to filter out less meritorious issues so that counsel can emphasize those that present the best opportunity for relief on appeal
B: holding that appellate counsel is not required to raise meritless issues on appeal
C: recognizing the right to counsel on appeal
D: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
A.