With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appellant’s medical history, spoke to appellant in detail about his mental health, and interviewed appellant’s medical care provider. After speaking to appellant about his condition, counsel and appellant agreed to pursue the claim of self-defense. Decided November 20, 2006. Patricia F. Angelí, for appellant. Jewel C. Scott, District Attorney, Melvin E. Abercrombie, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Benjamin H. Pierman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. We conclude that counsel’s choice of trial strategy was not unreasonable, and therefore, counsel’s performance was not deficient. The evidence fails to demonstrate that counsel’s decision to forego an insanity defense was unreasonable. Compare Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 304 (612 SE2d 789) (2005) (<HOLDING>) with Fortson v. State, 277 Ga. 164 (587 SE2d

A: holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial
B: holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue
C: holding that because appellant had waived review of constitutional challenge to sentencing statute by failing to raise it at the first opportunity the trial court correctly proceeded to examine whether the appellants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional challenges to the sentencing statutes
D: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
A.