With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". impeachment was a matter of trial strategy. We cannot say that counsel’s strategy was unreasonable; the fact that the strategy was ultimately unsuccessful is not a sufficient reason to deem his representation ineffective. See People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465, 480 (1994) (noting that mere errors in trial strategy does not establish incompetence, “ ‘even if [this judgement is shown to be] clearly wrong in retrospect’ ”), quoting United States v. Yancey, 827 F.2d 83, 90 (7th Cir. 1987). In our view, counsel’s decision to withdraw the objection to the alleged hearsay statements was trial strategy; such tactical decisions, even if ultimately unsuccessful, are generally not sufficient to support a successful claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Orange, 168 Ill. 2d at 153 (<HOLDING>). Defendant also argues that we should overlook

A: 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: holding that trial counsels decision to submit evidence to the jury that his confession was coerced rather than submitting the evidence to the judge in a motion to suppress was a matter of trial strategy and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance
C: holding that counsels failure to move to suppress the defendants confession constituted ineffective assistance because it was obvious that the confession would have been suppressed
D: 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
B.