With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". doubt about whether Swanson had perpetrated the robbery or whether intimidation was proved. Id. at 1071, 1074. There, we applied Cronic because counsel’s concession concerned the only factual issues in dispute on the only count that was charged. Id. at 1074. The government had also failed to identify any strategy that could justify counsel’s betrayal of his client. Id. at 1075. Unlike Swanson, Thomas was tried on multiple counts, and counsel decided to focus on the charges on which Thomas had a chance. As we recognized in Sioanson, “in some cases a trial attorney may find it advantageous to his client’s interests to concede certain elements of an offense or his guilt of one of several charges.” Id. at 1075-76; see also Anderson v. Calderon, 232 F.3d 1053, 1087-90 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Osband v.

A: holding that swanson and cronics presumption of prejudice does not apply where trial counsel conceded that defendant murdered the victim but asked the jury to convict him of firstdegree murder rather than felony murder in order to avoid eligibility for the death penalty
B: holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill
C: holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense
D: holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder
A.