With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In Gaskin’s second claim, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide Dr. Krop with requested background information. The trial court denied relief on this claim, stating: Dr. Krop testified that the school records were the only information he was unawai'e of for his initial evaluations and diagnosis of the Defendant.... Dr. Krop also testified that his diagnosis of the Defendant would be the same as it was originally on June 8, 1990, only four (4) days after his deposition, with the addition of the opinion that the Defendant suffers from a learning disability, attention deficit disorder, based on the school records. The trial court found that Gaskin did not establish that he suffered any actual prejudice from counsel’s failure to give Dr. Krop a.2000) (<HOLDING>). The fact remains that even if Dr. Krop had

A: holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial
B: holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial
C: holding that counsels performance was deficient for failing to investigate readily available evidence of mental impairment
D: holding that trial counsels performance was not deficient for failing to give a mental health expert additional information because the expert testified at the evidentiary hearing that the collateral data would not have changed his testimony
D.