Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
request for a new penalty hearing and Ellio re to state such a ground [for relief] in the [PCRA] petition shall preclude the defendant from raising that ground in any proceeding for post-conviction collateral relief’). Even if we were to assume, for purposes of argument, that Elliott preserved his Brooks claim by referencing trial counsel’s failure to meet with him prior to trial in the context of the separate issue challenging counsel’s failure to investigate evidence of Elliot’s prior bad acts, he would not be entitled to relief on the merits of the claim. It is clear that a majority of this Court in Brooks expressly required that counsel representing a defendant in a capital murder trial conduct a substantive, face-to-face consultation with the defendant prior to tri 90, 896 (1999) ; Commonwealth v. Bundy, 421 A.2d at 1051
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that ineffectiveness of postconviction counsel could establish cause to reopen judgment but ineffectiveness of postconviction appellate counsel could not
B. holding that to establish ineffectiveness on the basis of alleged inadequate pretrial consultation the defendant must establish that counsel inexcusably failed to raise issues that had they been proffered would have entitled him to relief
C. holding that where counsel has failed to file or perfect an appeal despite the defendants request it is clear that the defendant need not demonstrate that but for the ineffectiveness of counsel such an appeal would have succeeded or even would have merit
D. holding that it would be improper for original trial counsel to raise the issue of his own alleged ineffectiveness in a posttrial habeas corpus case
E. holding that counsel cannot raise his or her own ineffectiveness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.