With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". had no reasonable strategy for such omission, Elliott has failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice by establishing what evidence a further investigation would have revealed that would have changed the outcome of the trial. Similar to our holding in Issue I, absent a proffer of information that trial counsel could have uncovered and used to impeach the bad act witnesses’ testimony, Elliott’s claim that he was prejudiced by a deficiency in his investigation or preparation fails. See Harvey, 812 A.2d at 1197 (rejecting claim that counsel was ineffective for not undertaking further investigá tion where appellant failed to show that doing so would have provided material evidence or would have been helpful to his defense); Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 567 Pa. 310, 787 A.2d 292, 304 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Elliott’s contentions, the

A: holding conjecture that additional investigation might have yielded valuable information is insufficient to establish prejudice for ineffective assistance claim
B: holding that defendants mere allegations of ineffective assistance were insufficient to prevail on such a claim
C: holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record
D: holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
A.