With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Given the unique circumstances of this case, we disagree. The victim initially told police that Peals attacked her for no reason. At trial, the victim testified that she was intoxicated and was the aggressor. Further, the victim testified that she lied to the police because she was angry with Peals. The portions of the record attached to the trial court’s order show that the victim was the only witness to testify at trial about her intoxication. Because the victim admitted at trial that she lied, the jury may have been disinclined to believe her testimony. Peals, who asserted self-defense, may have been prejudiced by counsel’s failure to corroborate her testimony concerning her intoxication with the testimony of medical personnel. Cf. Kegler v. State, 712 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the trial court is directed to

A: holding that counsels failure to impeach a witness by showing bias was ineffective assistance
B: holding in rule 3850 proceeding that trial counsel s failure to impeach witness with statements he made on night of murder was not reasonable under the circumstances
C: recognizing that evidence of extra judicial statements by nonparty witness was admissable only to impeach
D: holding that counsel was ineffective for inter alia failing to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements
B.