2003 Pa. Super. 137 - Commonwealth v. Thornton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Grant held, “that, as a general rule, a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review.” Grant, 813 A.2d at 738 . The rationale behind the Grant rule rested on three grounds. “First, ineffectiveness claims, by their very nature, often involve claims that are not apparent on the record.” Id. at 737. “Second, even presuming the merit of the claim is apparent on the existing record, oftentimes, demonstrating trial counsel’s ineffectiveness will involve facts that are not available on the record.” Id. “Third, as multiple courts have recognized, the trial court is in the best position to review claims related to trial counsel’s error in the first instance as that is the court that observed first hand counsel’s allegedly deficient performance.” Id. It is for these reasons, the Grant court concludes, that a majority of federal and state jurisdictions have generally chosen not to address ineffectiveness of trial counsel claims on direct appeal. We find, however, that Grant does not bar the adjudication of all ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims on direct appeal. Cf. [Commonwealth v.] Rosendary, [ 818 A.2d 526 , 530 n. 2 (Pa.Super.2003) ] (noting that the “new [Grant ] rule leaves open the issue regarding the propriety of raising a claim on direct appeal of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness which is apparent of record.”) In short, we do not believe our supreme court intended to establish an absolute rule. But see Comm”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Causey