information did not add any new, distinct charges or specify any different time period than was alleged in the original information. Therefore, Bradley has not demonstrated that he was significantly prejudiced by counsel’s failure to seek delay upon receipt of the amended information. ¶ 65 Finally, Bradley argues that trial counsel’s failure to investigate or call witnesses constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Bradley offers no evidence that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to investigate or call identified witnesses. In fact, Bradley does not offer any evidence about who these potential witnesses are or what their testimony would entail. Therefore, the record is inadequate to enable us to consider this claim. See State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 16, 12 P.3d 92 (<HOLDING>). V. Cumulative Error ¶ 66 Finally, Bradley
holding that res judicata does not bar a defendant from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in a postcollateral proceeding if the defendant was represented by the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal or if an actual conflict of interest enjoined appellate counsel from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record holding that when a defendant raises a claim on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective defendant bears the burden of assuring record is adequate holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding that when a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the trial judge must conduct an inquiry into the claim