With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and its opinion and commentary. The Commonwealth also notes that there is no life history of bizarre behavior on the part of [Appellant]. Likewise there is no apparent nexus between the violent stabbing death of Drayton Spahr and [Appellant’s] deficient performance on a categories and card sorting test administered thirteen years after an event. Neither a ten year old broken jaw or a twenty three year old high fever provided trial counsel with any real notice or opportunity to seek mitigation of his crime. Brief for Appellee, at 5-6. Under the Post Conviction Relief Act, constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel will support a claim for post-conviction relief. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(h); see also Commonwealth v. Chester, 557 Pa. 358, 374-76, 733 A.2d 1242,1250-51 (1999) (<HOLDING>). As noted, Appellant’s only extant claim is of

A: holding that the post conviction relief act extends to challenges arising from the penalty phase of trial including ineffectiveness claims
B: holding that mental health evidence could be mitigating at the penalty phase even though it is insufficient to establish a legal defense to conviction in the guilty phase
C: holding that where much of evidence davis alleged should have been presented was in fact presented during penalty phase davis had not shown that counsels ineffectiveness deprived him of reliable penalty phase
D: holding that trial court had discretion to admit relevant photographs in penalty phase
A.