With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". first part of claim two, Mr. Goodwin alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at a hearing on a motion to suppress a pretrial confession and at the trial on the charges. In the portion of claim two addressing the motion to suppress, Mr. Goodwin alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to research the effects of heroin withdrawal on an addict. This allegation is concluso-ry, and we need not address it further. As part of this portion of his second claim, Mr. Goodwin also asserted that his trial counsel failed to present the testimony of medical experts who had been subpoenaed and were waiting to testify. The postconviction court denied this part of claim two as facially insufficient, citing Leftwich v. State, 954 So.2d 714, 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Goodwin alleged that the potential

A: holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources
B: holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness
C: holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case
D: holding that a 3851 claim of ineffective assistance was legally insufficient where the motion did not allege the specific facts to which the witness would testify and how the lack of testimony prejudiced the case
C.