With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Haney, No. NMCCA 9900878 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App.2004). 5 . At trial, defense counsel did not make a motion to suppress Appellant’s confession to SSgt Deal. The coerced confession theory was presented only to the panel during presentation of the case on the merits. 6 . MSgt Crecilius did not testify, but on cross-examination, SSgt Deal corroborated MSgt Crecilius's presence at an initial meeting prior to his meeting with Appellant. 7 . Appellant stated: "I didn’t want to end up in confinement so I thought, well, if I go back and tell them what they want to hear, I will not end up in confinement.” 8 . United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 33, 108 S.Ct. 864, 99 L.Ed.2d 23 (1988). 9 . Id. at 33-34, 108 S.Ct. 864. 10 . 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). 11 . A.F.2001) (<HOLDING>); Ruiz, 54 M.J. at 143 (holding that, where an

A: holding that there was no material prejudice arising from trial counsels repeated references to an accuseds invoking his right to counsel
B: holding that repeated references to uncontroverted evidence of an accuseds guilt throughout closing argument was reversible error where the comments were general and not tailored to the defense credibility argument
C: holding that trial counsels failure to object to the prosecutors repeated pervasive and clearly improper references during closing arguments to similar transactions committed by the defendant constituted deficient performance and amounted to prejudice that required a new trial
D: holding that there is no right to counsel beyond the initial direct appeal and thus no right to counsel on discretionary review
A.