file post-sentence motions, opting instead to bring this timely direct appeal from his judgment of sentence. ¶ 6 On appeal, Burkett raises the following issues: I.Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a post verdict motion that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence? II.Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence? III.Whether the verdict was contrary to law? Brief and Reproduced Record of Appellant, at 4. II. DISCUSSION ¶ 7 Burkett first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a post-verdict motion that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We are precluded from reviewing such a claim, which Burkett raises for the first time on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726, 738 (2002) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, Burkett’s
holding that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective counsel in a collateral proceeding not on direct review holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal holding that review of counsel ineffectiveness claims should be deferred until collateral review holding that as a general rule a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review recognizing that it is the defendants burden to demonstrate a reason to depart from the general practice that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective assistance counsel on collateral review