# Commonwealth v. Bracey

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 31, 2001 · 568 Pa. 264

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630523

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Edward BRACEY, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 31, 2001
- **Citations:** 568 Pa. 264; 795 A.2d 935; 2001 Pa. LEXIS 2826
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cappy
- **Judges:** Flaherty, C.J., and Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman and Saylor
- **Cited by:** 190 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/9630523

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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…
- 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
- holding that “an undeveloped argument, which fails to meaningfully discuss and apply the standard governing the review of ineffectiveness claims, simply does not satisfy Appellant's burden of establishing that he is entitled to any relief.”

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630523. Public record. Not legal advice.