With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the trial whether to testify; however, the trial court thought any reasonable person would believe the right to testify was extinguished after the defense rested. The trial court stated Wright’s counsel should have informed it of Wright’s desire to testify before the trial court ruled it would not charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter and self-defense. The trial court stated that after hearing its ruling on the charges, Wright knew which supporting evidence was missing, had it “all mapped out,” and would be able to fit his testimony into the required parameters and tell the jury he “was afraid to death.” The trial court refused to reopen the record to allow Wright to testify. Initially, we note that this issue is appropriate for direct review. See id. at 241, 741 S.E.2d at 702 (<HOLDING>). Although Wright asserts on appeal that his

A: holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
B: holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record
C: holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal
D: holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate
A.