With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court did not err in reaching this conclusion. Former defense counsel Gontarek testified that he “100 percent prefers” a psychologist versus a parent to testify about the background of a defendant facing the death penalty. And, during the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Gonta-rek also testified that he believed Dr. Kub-iak was a better witness than Bailey’s mother. As we previously stated, it is not ineffective assistance when trial counsel carries out a reasonable strategy that discriminates between the best potential witnesses to call. See Everett, 54 So.3d at 474 (“This Court has also consistently held that a trial counsel’s decision to not call certain witnesses to testify at trial can be reasonable trial strategy.”) (citing Bowles v. State, 979 So.2d 182, 188 (Fla.2008) (<HOLDING>); Arbelaez v. State, 898 So.2d 25, 39

A: holding that counsels failure to call clinical psychologist to provide emotional disturbance mitigation was reasonable trial strategy
B: holding that after weighing the benefitrisk ratio counsels declination to call a clinical psychologist whose testimony could have provided emotional disturbance mitigation was consistent with reasonable trial strategy
C: holding that the combined effect of trial counsels deficiencies should be considered in weighing prejudice
D: holding that trial counsels failure to call defendants family members as witnesses during penalty phase was reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance of counsel
B.