been allowed to take the witness stand in his own defense. R. Vol. XVII at 2687. The trial court told Williams to raise this issue on appeal. Id. at 2688. Thus, Williams could have claimed on direct appeal that the trial court’s failure to resolve this issue in the first instance was error. Furthermore, Williams was certainly aware that he should have raised this claim on direct appeal. In short, Williams was not prevented from raising his claim because of the inadequacy of the record on appeal. Thus, the district court did not err in ruling that this claim was procedurally barred. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Regarding Right to Testify Williams next contends his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he denied him his right to testify. See Cannon, 383 F.3d at 1170 (<HOLDING>). Although Williams did not assert his
recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that the appropriate vehicle for claims alleging that defense counsel violated a defendants right to testify is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that to the extent defendants claim is one of ineffective assistance of counsel it is not cognizable on direct appeal and rule 2915 is the exclusive procedure by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be advanced holding that right to appeal claim of ineffective assistance of counsel alleging that counsel failed to convey plea negotiations timely and adequately inform of consequences of pleading guilty to jury for sentencing waived because plea of guilty to jury was independent of and not supported by alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims