stating, “[trial] counsel was not required to disregard the findings of his expert and continue to consult experts, at the expense of limited judicial resources, until he found one willing to testify that [Bracey] was organically brain damaged or manifested some kind of major mental illness”
How later courts described this case
- stating, “[trial] counsel was not required to disregard the findings of his expert and continue to consult experts, at the expense of limited judicial resources, until he found one willing to testify that [Bracey] was organically brain damaged or manifested some kind of major mental illness”
- finding that the mere tacking on of a sentence stating that all prior counsel were ineffective for failing to raise underlying claims of error does not satisfy Appellant's burden of establishing that he is entitled to post conviction relief on ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
- concluding that counsel could not be found ineffective for failing to present evidence of the appellant’s history of abuse where appellant and his family had failed to reveal such history during their consultations with counsel
- holding undeveloped arguments that fail to discuss and apply the standard governing the review of ineffectiveness claims, do not satisfy the appellant’s burden of establishing that he is entitled to any relief
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice CAPPY
concurring.
I join the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Saylor, for the reasons as more fully set forth in the concurring opinion of this author filed in Commonwealth v. Lambert, 568 Pa. 346 , 797 A.2d 232 (Pa.2001).