With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The trial court was authorized by statute to consider the PSI report and testimony prior to pronouncing punishment. See Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. Art. 37.07 and 42.12 § 9 (Vernon Supp.2004) (stating that prior to imposition of sentence, the judge shall direct a supervision officer to report in writing on the circumstances of the offense charged, the amount of restitution necessary to compensate a victim, the criminal and social history of the defendant, and any other information relating to the defendant or the offense requested by the judge). In addition, appellant failed to overcome the presumption that his counsel’s actions were part of a strategic plan. See Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 713-14 (Tex.Crim.App.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1053, 121 S.Ct. 2196, 149 L.Ed.2d 1027 (2001) (<HOLDING>). We hold that appellant failed to show

A: holding that counsels failure to object or request a limiting instruction for evidence of defendants incarceration was sound trial strategy
B: holding that trial counsels failure to call defendants family members as witnesses during penalty phase was reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance of counsel
C: holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel
D: holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy
D.