Here, the State consistently asserted in both the Williams and Antee prosecutions that it would rely on a murder conviction in one as an aggravator in the other, depending on which produced the first conviction. Unlike Marshall and Bennett, the defense engaged in an ongoing dialog with the State as to the form the final notice would take, a negotiation that continued until the first day of the third trial. The omission of the other-murder-conviction aggravator was not the product of the State considering and rejecting it, then trying to revive it later, as in Bennett, but a change in the facts occasioned by Leonard's conviction in the Williams case. Cf. Riker v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, Docket No. 56590, 2010 WL 3554576 (Order Denying Petition, Sept. 9, 2010) (rejecting challenge to amended notice of intent filed after defendant obtained relief from death sentence in postconviction proceeding and distinguishing Bennett because added prior-murder-conviction aggravator was not available at the time of the original penalty hearing). These facts, coupled with Leonard's repeated acknowledgments on the record that he knew the State would be filing an amended notice to add the Williams conviction and had no objection, support that defense counsel was not ineffective in not moving to strike the amended notice filed the day of trial, not 15 days earlier.