(in order to preserve Crawford argument, defendant was required to object to admissibility on Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause grounds). 4 . "Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See Pa.R.E. 801(c). Generally, hearsay evidence is not admissible. See Pa.R.E. 802. 5 . Appellant urges this Court to address the merits of his ineffective assistance claims because the record is sufficient to allow review of these claims. In the past, we have addressed ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal where the record was complete for review and the trial court authored an opinion addressing the claims. See Commonwealth v. Causey, 833 A.2d 165 (Pa.Super.2003) (<HOLDING>). Yet, even if we assume, in arguendo, that the
holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim holding that grant did not require dismissal of a claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge sufficiency of the evidence where record was complete and the trial court drafted an opinion addressing this claim holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing because the trial record clearly indicated that the sentencing judge was aware of many of the mitigators that counsel was presenting to this court on appeal holding that the postconviction court erred in finding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim proeedurally barred because the courts opinion did not comment specifically on the ineffective counsel argument and the overall holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jurys verdict could not be viewed as an adjudication on the merits of the ineffective assistance claim holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel