With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Overton also contends that Zientek should have been questioned on his involvement with Daniels on other matters to illustrate that Zientek worked as an agent for the State. This mode of impeachment was considered and rejected by Smith because it would have opened the door to bolstering Zientek’s testimony if the information given to Daniels in subsequent cases was corroborated by Daniels as being truthful. See Jones, 928 So.2d at 1185. For all these reasons, the decision to not further explore the alleged relationship with Daniels was not deficient performance. Even if any of these failures were deemed to constitute deficient performance, there was no prejudice. Green provided similar testimony that supported the conviction here. See Whitfield v. State, 923 So.2d 375, 380 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). Overton has failed to assert specific,

A: holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence
B: holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel
C: holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel
D: holding that prosecutor free to comment on defendants failure to call certain witnesses or present certain testimony
A.