With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court addressed Jefferson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, máde in his motion for a new trial. Jefferson pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. He filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that his counsel had been ineffective. His motion did not set forth any facts supporting his claim. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that because the motion for a new trial raised only a general claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the claim was not properly presented to the trial court or preserved for appellate review. In his petition for a writ of certiorari to this Court, Jefferson contended that facts in the record supported his motion and, therefore, that he was not required to make a more specific assertion. See Hill v. State, 675 So.2d 484 (Ala.Crim.App.l995)(<HOLDING>). Jefferson argued that the record on its face

A: holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion
B: holding appellants issue was rendered moot because appellant was given the opportunity to make a record in support of his motion for new trial and appellate court considered that record in disposing of only issue raised in the motion for new trial
C: holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified
D: holding that when the grounds stated in the motion for a new trial are evident in the record a hearing is warranted even though the motion is not supported by affidavits or other extrinsic evidence
D.