With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that could not be reconstructed and was, therefore, so deficient as to have made a fair and complete direct appeal of Perryman’s convictions an impossibility. The portions of the record cited to by Perryman at the hearing on his motion to reconstruct the record contain such statements as “Sidebar; inaudible to report.” See 2006 Transcript at 197, 200, 204, 207, 214, 225, 238. The transcript on the direct appeal from the 2006 trial included these notations indicating that certain portions were inaudible. Perryman did not raise the claims of an insufficient record on direct appeal and does not allege that his trial counsel or appellate counsel were ineffective on these bases. Consequently, we conclude that Perryman waived these claims. See Reed v. State, 866 N.E.2d 767, 768 (Ind.2007) (<HOLDING>); Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591, 592

A: holding that issues not properly presented to the bankruptcy court  cannot be raised  for the first time on appeal
B: holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered
C: holding that only issues not known at the time of the original trial or issues not available on direct appeal may be properly raised through postconviction proceedings
D: holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal
C.