recognizing well-settled principle that “[w]e will not disturb the findings of the PCRA court if they are supported by the record, even where the record could also support a contrary holding”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing well-settled principle that “[w]e will not disturb the findings of the PCRA court if they are supported by the record, even where the record could also support a contrary holding”
- concurring and dissenting opinion of Manderino, J., joined by Roberts, J.
- post-conviction hearing court, having determined that petitioner is entitled to pursue appeal, must not rule upon merits of remaining claims for relief unless the claims were not previously ruled upon by the trial *276 court
- where counsel’s brief on appeal failed to comply with Supreme court rules and appeared to be a “preliminary draft,” appellate counsel was ineffective, and “the proper remedy is to afford appellant a new appeal in which he may reassert the issues adversely affected by his initial counsel’s ineffective stewardship of his appeal.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EAGEN, J.,
dissents in the appeal docketed at No. 127 and would reverse the order of the Court of Common Pleas granting the right to appeal nunc pro tunc. In appeals docketed at Nos. 121 and 122, he concurs in the results.
ROBERTS, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which MANDERINO, J., joins.
POMEROY, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which O’BRIEN, J., joins.
MANDERINO, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, J., joins.