as in this case acted in a manner that did not comply with the man date of Criminal Rule 5 which requires trial courts to arrange and provide for the recording of objections. Perryman asserts that “possible objections at trial were needlessly lost for direct appeal purposes without counsel’s knowledge, and Perry-man therefore could not have had a fair trial.” Id. at 30. He argues that his “ability to appeal any error regarding objections and trial court rulings at his trial was severely compromised because most of those bench conferences and rulings are nonexistent in his trial record, and [he] could not appeal what does not exist, which is the prejudice to [him] in this matter.” Id. The State argues that this issue is unavailable for post-conviction proceedings because many “ina ) (<HOLDING>), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1136,
holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal holding that freestanding claim that the trial court committed fundamental error in giving a jury instruction after deliberations had begun was unavailable in postconviction proceedings holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived holding that postconviction procedures do not provide a petitioner with a superappeal or opportunity to consider freestanding claims that the original trial court committed error and that such claims are available only on direct appeal holding that only issues not known at the time of the original trial or issues not available on direct appeal may be properly raised through postconviction proceedings