With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2008, Seibert then filed the present appeal, raising five claims, and the State filed a cross-appeal, raising one claim. Seibert also filed the present habeas petition, raising seven claims. II. RULE 3.851 PROCEEDING Claim 1 In this claim, Seibert asserts that the postconvietion court erred in summarily denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective with respect to the suppression hearing and the guilt phase of his trial. He asserts that he is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on this claim. We disagree. Because a court’s decision whether to grant an evidentiary hearing on a rule 3.851 motion is ultimately based on written materials before the court, its ruling is tantamount to a pure question of law, subject to de novo review. See State v. Coney, 845 So.2d 120, 137 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, when reviewing a court’s summary

A: holding that whether statements are testimonial is a legal issue subject to de novo review
B: holding that pure questions of law that are discernible from the record are subject to de novo review
C: holding questions of law related to class certification are reviewed de novo
D: holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review
B.