Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence of extraneous offenses of delivery of narcotics and possession of weapons to be admitted with no objection). Here, Garcia’s counsel repeatedly elicited or opened the door to evidence that set his client up for impeachment by the State and damaged Garcia’s credibility with the jury. Given the inherently prejudicial nature of extraneous offense evidence, the fact that the evidence would not have been otherwise admissible by the State during guilt/innocence, and the fact that Garcia’s defense rested almost entirely on his credibility, there could have been no reasonable trial strategy for Garcia’s counsel to elicit and open the door to the similar extraneous offense and the numerous instances of “bad acts.” See Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475, 484-86 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) ; see also Ex parte Menchaca, 854 S.W.2d 128,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where defense turned on defendants credibility there could be no strategic basis for allowing jury to hear defendant had prior conviction for same offense for which he was being tried and concluding counsel rendered ineffective assistance
B. holding that where defense depended on defendants credibility there was no possible reasonable strategy and defense counsel rendered deficient performance by intentionally eliciting and opening the door to otherwise inadmissible and clearly prejudicial evidence of defen dants current incarceration on two prior convictions one of which involved similar conduct to the charged offense during the guiltinnocence phase
C. holding trial record affirmatively showed defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by purposefully eliciting testimony as to defendants remote prior conviction for a different offense where there could be no possible reasonable strategy because defendants credibility was crucial to his alibi defense
D. holding counsel deficient because she could have had no reasonable basis for not objecting to certain inadmissible evidence despite no evidence of counsels strategy
E. holding that defense counsel opened the door to the prosecutions questioning of the defendant about prior convictions when defense counsel asked a prosecution witness whether he was aware that the defendant was  a convicted felon
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.