With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, we presume prejudice from deficient performance of defense counsel only in a narrow set of circumstances. The presumption arises when the client shows that during the criminal proceedings, he was actually or constructively denied the assistance of counsel altogether. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000); United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Under such circumstances, “[n]o specific showing of prejudice [is] required,” because “the adversary process itself [is] presumptively unreliable.” Id. The United States Supreme Court has held that counsel’s failure to advise a defendant about the consequences of a plea does not fall into this category. See Hill, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we do not presume prejudice. Given

A: holding that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea
B: holding defendant did not show required prejudice from counsels alleged failure to advise him about eligibility for parole under the sentence agreed to in the plea bargain
C: holding that a plea was voluntary and intelligent despite the states failure to supply the defendant with information about his parole eligibility date
D: holding the inherent prejudice in such cases results from the defendants inability due to counsels neglect to make an informed decision whether to plea bargain
B.