stating, “[the defendant] did not direct a motion for recusal to the trial judge following the court’s rejection of his plea agreement, and we find no merit to his argument that a recusal motion can somehow be inferred from his request to present the plea to a different judge”
How later courts described this case
- stating, “[the defendant] did not direct a motion for recusal to the trial judge following the court’s rejection of his plea agreement, and we find no merit to his argument that a recusal motion can somehow be inferred from his request to present the plea to a different judge”
- stating “we may not reach the merits of [the] claims where the Commonwealth has object[ed] to the omission of the statement”
- finding sentencing claim waived for review where Commonwealth objected to omission of Rule 2119(f) statement
- holding waiver required where Commonwealth specifically objects to absence of rule 2119(f) statement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
FORD ELLIOTT, J.:
¶ 1 While I join the disposition on the merits, I write separately to concur only in the majority’s analysis of Commonwealth v. Grant. I believe Grant allows this court to resolve ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal as long as there is an adequate record on the issue before this court. This is true regardless of whether the issue has been addressed by the trial court in the first instance.