With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". he hired to investigate Petitioner’s primary defenses. (Mot. for Stay at 10-11, Pg. ID 7015-16.) According to Respondent, the failure of the investigator to complete the report prior to trial was not significant because Petitioner “never produced [the final report] or even alleged that it contained anything but what the investigator had already told [defense] counsel — that he found nothing to assist [Petitioner].” (Id.) (emphasis in original.) That criticism confuses the issue before the Court. The Court was not adjudicating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel which would have required a showing that the lack of a final written report ultimately had an impact on the result at trial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Instead, the Court was evaluating the

A: holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
B: holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different
C: holding that ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when there is deficient performance and prejudice which is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
D: holding that to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
D.