With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". until collateral review.”). It is most troubling that the majority is apparently willing to circumvent the deferral rule announced only recently in Grant by sua sponte addressing prior counsel's performance. 13 . Though I would not presently review this issue, I recognize that failing to do so presently would not leave Appellant without recourse. In the event Appellant wished to challenge either the lawfulness of his guilty plea, or counsel's assistance with respect thereto, he could pursue such claims in a timely petition for post-conviction collateral relief. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(h) (pertaining to ineffective assistance of counsel claims), (iii) (relating to unlawfully induced guilty pleas). See also Commonwealth ex. rel. Dadario v. Goldberg, 565 Pa. 280, 773 A.2d 126 (2001) (<HOLDING>). 14 .In his second issue on appeal, Appellant

A: holding that claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during penalty phase of capital case is cognizable under the pcra
B: holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be deferred to pcra review trial courts should not entertain claims of ineffectiveness upon postverdict motions and such claims should not be reviewed upon direct appeal
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 ineffective assistance of counsel claims arising from pleabargaining process are eligible for review under the pcra
D.