With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 96 L.Ed.2d 682 (1987). Furthermore, a survey of those decisions finding counsel’s actions or omissions to be unreasonable indicate a level of incompetence far greater than that exhibited in this case. See, e.g., Horton, 941 F.2d at 1462 (concluding that counsel "began to follow one path, based upon a misinterpretation of the law, without ever evaluating the merits of alternative paths” when attorneys admitted during state habeas corpus eviden-tiary hearing that they never investigated any mitigating circumstances); Armstrong, 833 F.2d at 1433 (concluding that failure to present background evidence was not strategic when trial counsel’s testimony at evidentiary hearing revealed negligible preparation and investigation for penalty phase); Magill v. Dugger, 824 F.2d 879 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Elledge, 823 F.2d at 1445 (holding that

A: holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record
B: holding that ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes cause for procedural default only if counsels performance was constitutionally ineffective
C: recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
D: holding that performance of counsel whose first involvement with the case came on the morning of trial constituted ineffective assistance
D.