# Commonwealth v. Holmes > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 30, 2013 · 621 Pa. 595 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968081 ## Case - **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Justin David HOLMES - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** October 30, 2013 - **Citations:** 621 Pa. 595; 79 A.3d 562; 2013 Pa. LEXIS 2577; 2013 WL 5827027 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eakin - **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Saylor, Stevens, Todd - **Cited by:** 725 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968081 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - 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 … - 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… - 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 pro… - recognizing exceptions to Grant where (1) there are extraordinary circumstances in which trial counsel's “ineffectiveness is apparent from the record and meritorious to the extent that immediate consideration best serves the interests of justice” or (2) “there is good cause sh… ## Opinion text 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968081. Public record. Not legal advice.