With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". however, did not reference our Brooks decision in his 2009 amended petition, and did not include a claim based on trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to meet with him personally prior to trial. Elliott did not thereafter seek permission to amend his PCRA petition for purposes of raising any new claim. By order dated April 23, 2010, the PCRA court permitted the parties to file written submissions in support of the claims that remained, after the Commonwealth agreed not to oppose Elliott ing claim that trial counsel was ineffective because he met with the defendant only once before trial because the “time devoted to attorney-client consultations affords no basis for inferring the total extent of trial preparation”); Commonwealth v. Owens, 454 Pa. 268, 312 A.2d 378, 381 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Consistent with the Commonwealth’s

A: holding that the time actually spent by counsel with the accused discussing his case is not necessarily related to and affords no basis for inferring the extent of total trial preparation
B: holding that if the reason the victim cannot testify at trial is that the accused murdered her then the accused should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right even though the act with which the accused is charged is the same as the one by which he allegedly rendered the witness unavailable
C: recognizing that there is no brightline rule for when a disclosure is timely rather the question is whether the evidence was disclosed in sufficient time for an accused to take advantage of the information a determination necessarily dependent on the totality of the circumstances
D: holding that it is well settled that the amount of time an attorney spends consulting with his client before trial is not by itself a legitimate basis for inferring the total extent of counsels pretrial preparation much less the adequacy of counsels preparation
A.