With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hayes’ decision to abandon the insanity defense, but the record does not demonstrate that counsel had thoroughly discussed the decision to abandon the defense with Hayes before honoring Hayes’ choice. In other words, the record does not demonstrate that counsel’s decision to abandon the insanity defense at the direction of his client was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Although Hayes was declared competent to proceed, he had previously been declared incompetent. And counsel had filed a no tice of intent to pursue the insanity defense and did not abandon the defense until a week before trial. In addition, it appears from the facts of the case that an insanity defense was likely Hayes’ only viable defense. See Cabrera v. State, 766 So.2d 1131, 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). In Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 178, 125

A: holding that counsel was ineffective for failing to assert an entrapment defense that was legally available and where there was no other viable defense to present
B: holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity
C: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
D: holding defense counsel was not ineffective for choosing as matter of trial strategy to proceed with only one of several available theories of defense
A.