With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that this case involves, above all else, a credibility dispute of great magnitude. Despite the obvious need for the PCRA court to resolve hundreds of credibility issues, [Appellant] contends that there is no need for a hearing in this court. (See PCRA Court Opinion, dated April 6, 1998, at 2-3). Thus we have in a nutshell the argument made on Appellant’s behalf before the PCRA court regarding the record from the federal habeas proceeding. ¶ 85 In its opinion, the PCRA court rejected Appellant’s contention that the “full and fair hearing” contemplated by Pa. R.Crim.P. 1508 had already taken place in federal court, noting that the parties hotly disputed this matter. The PCRA court also rejected Appellant’s contention that Commonwealth v. Wells, 322 Pa.Super. 380, 469 A.2d 672 (1983) (<HOLDING>) was controlling. Wells dealt with the

A: holding that such statements were not even enough for an evidentiary hearing
B: holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue
C: holding that while the investigatory hearing is not a full evidentiary hearing it nevertheless must be expanded to permit the accused attorney to cross examine witnesses
D: holding law requires court to consider full record of any evidentiary hearing even if hearing held by different judge
D.