With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". two months earlier. Defense counsel’s failure to present evidence from the previous trial is much more likely to affect the outcome of the sentencing phase. Because so much time passed between the conviction and the sentencing, and this evidence was substantial enough that it reasonably could have altered the balance between the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, there does seem to be a reasonable probability that, but for defense counsel’s failure to reargue the favorable evidence from trial, the judge would have sentenced Pizzuto to life rather than death. Also, considered cumulatively with counsel’s other deficiencies discussed below, defense counsel’s failure to contest the State’s case in aggravation was prejudicial. See Harris v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432, 1438-39 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Taking into account the deficiencies in the

A: holding that the cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies in defense counsels performance prejudiced the defendant in a capital trial
B: holding that a defendant alleging ineffective assistance must demonstrate that their counsels performance both fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced the defense
C: recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance
D: holding pcr was properly denied where the applicant did not prove he was prejudiced by trial counsels deficient performance in failing to preserve an issue at trial
A.