explaining that boilerplate allegations of ineffectiveness are insufficient to warrant relief
How later courts described this case
- explaining that boilerplate allegations of ineffectiveness are insufficient to warrant relief
- “[t]here is no implication or holding that the choice not to life qualify a jury amounts to advocacy so glaringly *201 substandard as to amount to a deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel”
- "[t]here is no implication or holding that the choice not to life qualify a jury amounts to advocacy so glaringly substandard as to amount to a deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel"
- “Boilerplate allegations have never been sufficient to discharge [the appellant’s] affirmative burden to rebut the presumption of effectiveness.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice CAPPY,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority for the reasons as more fully set forth in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Lambert, 568 Pa. 346 , 797 A.2d 232 (2001).