With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and held that a failure to do so amounted to ineffectiveness of counsel warranting the grant of a new trial. A review of our case law prior to the Brooks decision, however, indicates that this Court had declined to evaluate ineffectiveness claims alleging the failure to prepare based solely on the existence or duration of counsel’s pretrial face-to-face consultation with the defendant. See Harvey, 812 A.2d at 1196-97 (rejecting a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for consulting with defendant for only one hour prior to trial where defendant failed to allege any issues that counsel should have raised or any beneficial information that his counsel would have discovered had further pretrial consultations been held); Commonwealth v. Mason, 559 Pa. 500, 741 A.2d 708, 715-16 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Porter, 556 Pa. 301, 728 A.2d

A: holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless
B: holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different
C: holding that counsels limited pretrial consultation with defendant did not render him ineffective because defendant did not identify issues that should have been raised and the defendants ability to convey pertinent information to counsel was impaired due to his severe intoxication at the time of the offense
D: holding that defense counsels failure to present voluntary intoxication as a defense in a capitalmurder prosecution was not beyond the range of reasonable professional judgment and thus did not amount to ineffective assistance in view of inconsistency of intoxication defense with deliberateness of the defendants actions during the shootings
C.