With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be a mitigating factor because it does not relate to a defendant’s character or background or to the circumstances of the offense. We are unpersuaded by defendant’s argument. In Martini I, supra, the Court rejected the same argument advanced by defendant. 131 N.J. at 313, 619 A.2d 1208. There, the Court concluded that although the trial court should instruct the jury during the penalty phase on potential noncapital sentences, “the court should inform the jury that defendant’s possible sentence for the other convictions should not influence its determination regarding the appropriateness of a death sentence on the murder count.” Ibid. Martini I’s holding in this regard is in harmony with the Court’s pronouncements in related contexts. See Bey III, supra, 129 N.J. at 603, 610 A.2d 814 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, it would lead to an incongruous

A: holding that although court should inform jury about defendants prior sentences the court should instruct the jury that it should not consider prior sentences in its decision to impose a life or death sentence because they are not statutory aggravating or mitigating factors
B: holding that although the guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark of calculating a proper sentence the district court should then consider all of the  3553a factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party
C: holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences
D: holding that juries should be informed of noncapital sentences but that they should base sentencing decision solely on aggravating and mitigating factors
A.