system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: witnesses. Williams failed to produce the kinds of expert witnesses which may have been helpful in proving his claim that his plea was affected by drug-induced confusion. On this record and on the face of the pleadings which raised the colorable claim which required an eviden-tiary hearing, abundant doubt is raised concerning Williams’s need for the assistance of counsel. That doubt should have been resolved in his favor. Id. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion in at least two cases involving a trial court’s denial of appointment of counsel for an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim that included alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to interview witnesses. See Witherspoon v. State, 634 So.2d 208, 209-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. State, 499 So.2d 24, 26 (Fla. 4th Options: A. holding that counsels failure to call an expert rebuttal witness does not constitute ineffectiveness the pcra petitioner must demonstrate that an expert witness was available who would have offered testimony designed to advance his cause B. holding that trial court erred in denying appointment of counsel where court had no information concerning petitioners education or ability to represent himself petitioner presented no expert testimony concerning competency of defense furnished by trial counsel petitioner did not call alibi witness to testify at hearing and effective crossexamination may have revealed that counsels own problems with federal government interfered with his representation of petitioner C. holding that petitioner was not deprived of the right to effective assistance of counsel at sentencing where petitioner did not cooperate with counsel regarding the investigation and identification of mitigating evidence imposed restrictions upon counsel and refused to submit to further psychological or psychiatric testing D. holding that trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioners request for counsel in evidentiary hearing where petitioner had requested counsel and had indicated in his motion that all documents had been prepared by prison law clerk he had only ninthgrade education he had no training in the law and he lacked the skills necessary to participate in hearing E. holding that trial courts failure to consider appointing counsel for petitioner in evidentiary hearing was improper where record revealed petitioners lack of education and sophistication petitioner had limited participation in hearing and record indicates that there was abundant doubt raised concerning gordons need for the assistance of counsel

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that trial court erred in denying appointment of counsel where court had no information concerning petitioners education or ability to represent himself petitioner presented no expert testimony concerning competency of defense furnished by trial counsel petitioner did not call alibi witness to testify at hearing and effective crossexamination may have revealed that counsels own problems with federal government interfered with his representation of petitioner