With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". P.3d 1212 (2009). And the same practical considerations which led to the Trevino holding, such as the need for a new lawyer, the need to expand the trial court record, and the need for sufficient time to develop the claim, argue strongly for initial consideration of Petitioner’s claim during collateral, rather than on direct, review. But Kansas does permit a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel which becomes apparent during the pendency of a direct appeal to be raised on direct appeal and remanded for the trial court to determine allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel as “an alternative remedy to K.S.A. 60-1507.” State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 120-21, 716 P.2d 580 (1986). See generally United States v. Oviedo-Tagle, 529 Fed.Appx. 944, 946-947 (10th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Petitioner may thus establish cause under

A: holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal
B: holding that as a general rule a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review
C: holding that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective counsel in a collateral proceeding not on direct review
D: holding that a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review
C.