Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
been brought out on voir dire. At trial, defense counsel filed a motion for new trial and a motion to voir dire Julian. After a detailed hearing conducted August 8, 1994, at which Julian was thoroughly examined, the court denied the motion for new trial. As the postconviction court stated, “The underlying substance of this claim is clearly Mr. Julian’s potential bias, an issue which could have been raised on direct appeal because it was thoroughly addressed at the conclusion of the trial.” On this basis, the court rejected the claim as procedurally barred, finding that it could have been raised on direct appeal. To the extent Kimbrough seeks review of the substantive issue underlying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we agree. See Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996) ; see also Sireci v. State, 469 So.2d 119, 120
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct which were based on facts in the record could have and should have been raised on direct appeal and were thus not cognizable in postconviction proceedings
B. holding that any claim that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal is barred from review on post conviction under the doctrine of res judicata
C. holding that claims not properly raised on direct appeal will not be considered as a basis for collateral relief
D. holding that postconviction relief claims which either were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal were properly denied without an evidentiary hearing
E. holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.