With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proceedings, we conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine whether the crime falls within the category of both the most aggravated and the least mitigated of murders. This Court considers the totality of circumstances and compares each case with other capital cases. The Court does not simply compare the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Taylor v. State, 937 So.2d 590 (Fla.2006). We have consistently held that the law of Florida reserves the death penalty for only the most aggravated and least mitigated of first-degree murders. State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1, 7-8 (Fla.1973). Because we find that the record supports all four aggravating circumstances found by the trial court, we find Kopsho’s death sentence proportionate. See Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>); Blackwood v. State, 777 So.2d 399 (Fla.2000)

A: holding death penalty proportionate where there were two aggravating factorsthe murder was committed for pecuniary gain and defendant had been convicted of a prior violent felonyand where there were two statutory and three nonstatutory mitigating circumstances
B: holding death sentence proportionate where defendant murdered wife and children and trial court found three aggravators previous capital felony ccp and hac and two statutory mitigators extreme disturbance and no prior criminal history
C: holding death sentence proportionate where defendant murdered exgirlfriends daughter and court upheld four aggravating circumstances ccp hac murder committed while engaged in a kidnapping and previous capital felony and four nonstatutory mitigating circumstances mental illness at time of crime good father would die in prison if given life sentence and no disciplinary problems in prison
D: holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors
C.