With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". designed to prevent the jury from learning that Appellant is an illegal alien. The stipulation is discussed in Issue 5, infra. Here, Appellant asserts that he and his counsel "had a material disagreement ... concerning a course of action in the representation, which created a conflict of interest.” Appellant’s Brief at 69-70. A "material disagreement” with respect to a course of action in the representation does not constitute a conflict of interest. See text, infra, for discussion of the meaning of conflict of interest. Appellant’s citations to authority do not support his assertions to the contrary. Any claim in this matter sounds in ineffective assistance of counsel, which is properly brought on collateral review. See Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726, 738 (2002) (<HOLDING>). In a footnote to this sub-claim, Appellant

A: recognizing that it is the defendants burden to demonstrate a reason to depart from the general practice that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective assistance counsel on collateral review
B: holding that review of counsel ineffectiveness claims should be deferred until collateral review
C: holding that a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review
D: holding that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective counsel in a collateral proceeding not on direct review
C.