rejecting argument based on statistics because “Appellant has failed to provide any link between the findings of this statistical abstract and his particular case”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting argument based on statistics because “Appellant has failed to provide any link between the findings of this statistical abstract and his particular case”
- Appellant argued that the trial court’s appointment of psychological testing was improper; the record did not support this representation of *667 the facts and as such the issue was held to have no merit
- rejecting an appellant's Batson claim based on the McMahon videotape because the claim had no grounding in the particular facts of the appellant's case
- reviewing merits of claim with "boilerplate” allegations of ineffective assistance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice CAPPY,
concurring.
I cannot join the majority opinion to the extent that it reviews Appellant’s arguments as claims of trial court error. Appellant presents some of his claims in terms of trial court error and the majority opinion addresses those claims in kind. I cannot join the merits analysis as to those claims, since Appellant failed to comply with the Pierce 1 standard of ineffectiveness and thus, such claims are waived. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31 , 720 A.2d 693 (1998)(eliminating relaxed waiver in capital cases for purposes of collateral review).
In all other respects, I join the majority opinion.
. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1987).