With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to proceed. On these facts, we hold, first, that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for a second evaluation. A defendant is not automatically entitled to a second evaluation simply because, after the first evaluation, he raises the defense of mental defect or mental incapacity or contests the first evaluation. Whether a second mental evaluation is necessary is within the trial court’s discretion to determine. Barnes v. State, 346 Ark. 91, 55 S.W.3d 271 (2001); Dirickson v. State, 329 Ark. 572, 953 S.W.2d 55 (1997). Moreover, it is not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to deny a second examination to a defendant who fails to act diligently to secure the necessary information on which to establish the defense of mental disease or defect. Dirickson, supra (<HOLDING>). Appellant here did not act with diligence to

A: holding that a defendant who did not raise the issue of incompetency at the first opportunity and who waited over one month after receiving notice of the mental evaluation to request supporting documents was not entitled to a second mental evaluation
B: holding that the failure to appoint the department of health and rehabilitative services diagnosis and evaluation team to perform the mental evaluation pursuant to section 91611ld florida statutes 1997 was harmless if the defendant re ceived a constitutionally adequate hearing regarding his competency
C: holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial
D: holding claim of deprivation of right to competent mental health evaluation was procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal
A.