With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. art. 37.07 § 3(a) applicable here. Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). The State contends that the extraneous offense is admissible in a pre-sentence investigation report under Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.12, sectio —Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.) (same). In conducting the harm analysis Duffy requires, we are governed by the standard set forth in Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 586, d for ineffective assistance of counsel where an attorney failed to object to inadmissible extraneous offenses contained in a pre-sentence investigation report. Thomas v. State, No. 01-94-00703-CR, — S.W.2d - [1995 WL 489100] (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] August 17, 1995, no pet.). See also Spriggs v. Collins, 993 F.2d 85, 89-90 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Appellate courts formerly presumed that in a

A: holding that because the defendant did not object to the factual recitations in the psi he effectively admitted the facts in the psi
B: holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report
C: holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel
D: holding trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to unadjudicated extraneous offenses in a psi report
D.