# Commonwealth v. Turner > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 22, 2013 · 622 Pa. 318 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968180 ## Case - **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Emma TURNER - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** November 22, 2013 - **Citations:** 622 Pa. 318; 80 A.3d 754; 2013 Pa. LEXIS 2814; 2013 WL 6134575 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Todd - **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd - **Cited by:** 304 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/4968180 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that the PCRA places time limitations on claims, and in doing so, “strikes a reasonable ____________________________________________ 3 The record reflects that Appellant was represented at trial by Chandra V. Bliece, Esq. - 11 - J-S29034-21 balance between society’s ne… - holding that “[b]ecause individuals who are not serving a state sentence have no liberty interest in and therefore no due process right to collateral review of that sentence, the [PCRA’s] statutory limitation of collateral review to individuals serving a sentence of imprisonme… - stating that the PCRA places time limitations on claims, and in doing so, “strikes a reasonable balance between society’s need for finality in criminal cases and the convicted person’s need to demonstrate that there has been an error in the proceedings that resulted in his con… - holding that “in the context of the jurisdictional timeliness restrictions on the right to bring a PCRA petition . . . the constitutional nature of a collateral claim does not overcome the legislature’s restrictions on collateral review” (cleaned up) - explaining that “the basic elements of procedural due process are adequate notice, the opportunity to be heard, and the chance to defend oneself before a fair and impartial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case” (citations omitted) ## Opinion text Justice TODD, dissenting. I agree with the view expressed by Justice Saylor in his Dissenting Opinion that post-conviction petitioners such as Appel-lee should not be penalized for abiding by this Court’s mandate in Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 813 A.2d 726 (2002), and that Appellee “should be permitted at least one opportunity to present her constitutional challenges to her judgment of sentence.” Dissenting Opinion (Saylor, J.) at 771. Indeed, regarding the majority’s contention that Appellee could have relied on Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003), to raise her ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal, given that this Court and the lower courts have struggled with the viability of Bomar , I find it unfair for this Court to now impute a requirement that Appellee should have invoked Bomar , on pain of loss of her ability to challenge trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. Bomar was an optional avenue for raising trial counsel ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal in the unusual situation where: (1) trial counsel withdrew post trial; (2) new counsel was retained and identified claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in post-trial motions; and (3) in its discretion, the trial court decided to hold a hearing on those ineffectiveness claims. Bomar, 573 Pa. at 463-66 , 826 A.2d at 853-55 . Critically, none of these requirements were met in Appellee’s case. Yet, despite this, the majority faults Ap-pellee for failing to invoke Bomar . To avoid a conclusion that due process princi- *772 pies were offended under the circumstances of this case, it is important to consider the retroactive obligation the majority has thus placed on Appellee. Here, Appellee did not obtain new counsel until she filed her PCRA petition. Therefore, to have invoked Bomar as the majority suggests, Appellee would have had to do all of the following within the 10-day period for filing post-sentence motions: First, as under our caselaw counsel is not obliged to raise his own ineffectiveness, Appellee, herself, would have had to identify trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. Second, Appel-lee would have had to seek to replace trial counsel. Third, Appellee would have had to instruct new counsel to file post-sentence motions raising the claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness she previously identified. All in 10 days. And who was obliged to have read this Court’s post- Grant pronouncements and discern that Appellee was required to take these steps lest she potentially lose her ability to challenge trial counsel’s effectiveness? Again, it would appear it was Appellee herself, as trial counsel’s own ineffectiveness was implicated. The majority has thus seemingly transformed Bomar , intended to provide an optional avenue for relief under an unusual confluence of events, into a mandate that a counseled litigant act, for a time, pro se. The unreasonableness of such expectation should be obvious. That resort to Bomar is insufficient to satisfy due process in this case is equally so. For all these reasons, I dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968180. Public record. Not legal advice.