Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Q: references to Wis. Stat. (Rule) 809.32 are to the 1997-98 version unless otherwise indicated. 2 A "Johnny cab" is a private vehicle driven by a retired person who provides an informal, unlicensed transportation service for a fee. 3 The Supreme Court has specifically held that Wis. Stat. (Rule) 809.32(1), as interpreted by this court, meets the constitutional requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429, 440 (1988). 4 The current rule contains a more detailed procedure and several additional provisions than the version in effect at the time of Allen's no-merit appeal. See Wis. Stat. (Rule) 809.32 (2007-08). 5 See Wis. Stat. 809.32(l)(b) (2007-08). 6 See State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 522, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 7 In State v. Tillman, the court of appeals
Holding statements: (A) holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be resolved on the facts appearing in the record and that under such circumstances the defendants remedy is to file a petition for habeas corpus (B) holding the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition challenging a 1231a5 reinstatement proceeding explaining the appropriate court of appeals is the sole and exclusive means to review a 1231a5 order reinstating a prior removal order (C) holding that a habeas petition in the court of appeals is the exclusive remedy for challenging the effectiveness of appellate counsel (D) holding that a habeas petition filed more than 30 days after the effective date of the real id act cannot be transferred to the court of appeals as a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction (E) holding habeas petition challenging denial of custody credits is not related to the conditions of confinement and was properly brought in the district of conviction
A:
holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be resolved on the facts appearing in the record and that under such circumstances the defendants remedy is to file a petition for habeas corpus