noting "with disapproval" a PCHA court's failure to make its findings of fact explicit in the post-conviction relief hearing record
How later courts described this case
- noting "with disapproval" a PCHA court's failure to make its findings of fact explicit in the post-conviction relief hearing record
- holding that a substantial matter of arguable merit is not to be abandoned on the ground that it might de-emphasize another issue
- Substantial matter of arguable merit is not to be abandoned on the ground that it might de-emphasize another issue. At least, appellate counsel should brief each significant arguable issue. Complete disregard of an important issue cannot be ignored as a matter of strategy. (emphasis supplied)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring).
I agree with the majority that appellant’s appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal the prosecutor’s improper closing remarks, which were inflammatory and prejudicial. Ordinarily, once this Court finds appellate counsel was ineffective for having failed to raise an issue, we need only grant the petitioner the right to file a new appeal raising the issue appellate counsel was ineffective f'or failing to raise. In this case, however, it is clear that appellant would be successful in his appeal and that a new trial would necessarily be granted because of the prosecutor’s improper closing argument. E. g., Commonwealth v. Cherry, 474 Pa. 295 , 378 A.2d 800 (1977); Commonwealth v. Gilman, 470 Pa. 179 , 368 A.2d 253 (1977); Commonwealth v. Joyner, 469 Pa. 333 , 365 A.2d 1233 (1976); Commonwealth v. Harvell, 458 Pa. 406 , 327 A.2d 27 (1974). All the facts of record necessary to decide whether the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper are before us, and the parties have briefed the issue. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, it is appropriate to proceed to the merits of appellant’s claim. See Commonwealth ex rel. Smith v. Myers, 438 Pa. 218 , 261 A.2d 550 (1970); Commonwealth v. Gist, 433 Pa. 101 , 249 A.2d 351 (1969).
Because the prosecutor’s closing remarks deprived appellant of a fair trial, Commonwealth v. Simon, 432 Pa. 386 , 248 A.2d 289 (1968), I agree that judgment of sentence should be reversed and a new trial granted.