holding trial court retained discretion to entertain ineffectiveness claims on post-verdict motions and direct appeal where: (1) the claim of ineffectiveness -5- J-S63038-18 is apparent from the record and meritorious to the extent that immediate consideration best serves the interests of justice; or (2) where there is good cause shown and the defendant knowingly and expressly waives his entitlement to seek subsequent PCRA review from his conviction and sentence
How later courts described this case
- holding trial court retained discretion to entertain ineffectiveness claims on post-verdict motions and direct appeal where: (1) the claim of ineffectiveness -5- J-S63038-18 is apparent from the record and meritorious to the extent that immediate consideration best serves the interests of justice; or (2) where there is good cause shown and the defendant knowingly and expressly waives his entitlement to seek subsequent PCRA review from his conviction and sentence
- holding that a trial court retained discretion to entertain ineffectiveness claims on post-verdict motions and direct appeal where: (1) the claim of ineffectiveness is apparent from the record and meritorious to the extent that immediate consideration best serves the interests of justice; or (2) where there is good cause shown and the defendant knowingly and expressly waives his entitlement to seek subsequent PCRA review from his conviction and sentence
- holding that aside from certain exceptions not applicable here, claims ____________________________________________ 6 Rule 600(B) provides that a criminal defendant is not to be held in pre-trial incarceration in excess of 180 days, and Rule 600(A) provides that the Commonwealth shall commence trial within 365 days. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A), (B). -7- J-S42022-18 of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be deferred until collateral review
- recognizing two exceptions to Grant deferral rule where (1) appellant demonstrates extraordinary circumstances in which the claim is both apparent from the record and meritorious, such that immediate consideration best serves the interest of justice or (2) appellant raises prolix claims, there is good cause shown, and request is accompanied by a knowing and express waiver of the right to pursue a first PCRA petition
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s holding: trial courts have the discretion to entertain ineffectiveness claims in post-trial proceedings that are resolvable and meritorious from the apparent record; likewise, they may hear non-record-based ineffectiveness claims if there is good cause to do so. I do not agree, however, that consideration under the latter “good cause” exception must include waiver of all future collateral review. Rather, I would hold this to be issue-specific; consideration of discrete issues raised on direct review precludes collateral review of those issues only. Once raised and addressed, such issues can no longer serve as the basis for collateral relief, whether they deal with trial counsel’s services or appellate counsel’s performance in litigating the issue.
I emphasize that this position would simply allow trial courts discretion to review discrete, determinable ineffectiveness claims on post-verdict motions in cases where such review promotes efficiency and judicial economy; it is not an endorsement of this practice as the preferred method of disposition of ineffectiveness claims, particularly prolix claims which are generally best left until collateral review, as noted in Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 813 A.2d 726 (2002).
Justice McCAFFERY joins this concurring opinion.