Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
judgment of witness credibility that is supported by competent, substantial evidence, as found in this case, will stand. See Gonzalez v. State, 990 So.2d 1017, 1024 (Fla.2008) (‘“As long as the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, “this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.”’ Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So.2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1984)).”). There is competent, substantial support within the postconviction evidentiary record for the circuit court’s conclusion that Bailey’s trial lawyers’ actions were part of reasonable trial strategy, and the ). Regarding Bailey’s assertion that Dr. Kubiak
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel
B. 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
C. holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy
D. holding that counsels failure to investigate the defendants personal and psychiatric history constituted ineffective assistance during the penalty phase but not during the guilt phase
E. holding trial counsels failure to investigate and present substantial mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.