With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [he] thought would have bearing on that motion to suppress [he] would have put [Everett] on [the stand].” At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Everett testified that while still in Alabama custody, he made statements to Detective John Murphy—an investigator with the Baldwin County Sheriffs Office—in between Everett’s statements to Sergeant Rodney Tilley, which were never presented to the trial court or jury. The postconviction court determined that attorney Smith was not ineffective. It found that Everett’s “version of what took place [was] not credible” and that nothing established that if Everett had testified at the suppression hearing, the trial court would have reached a different result. We agree that Everett did not establish that counsel was ineffective. This Court has co (<HOLDING>). Attorney Smith testified at the

A: 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
B: holding that counsels failure to investigate the defendants personal and psychiatric history constituted ineffective assistance during the penalty phase but not during the guilt phase
C: holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel
D: holding trial counsels failure to investigate and present substantial mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel
A.