Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

606 Pa. 209

996 A.2d 479

Commonwealth v. Holmes

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 4, 2010

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2010-06-04

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2013

14 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whether the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which are the exclusive subject of this nunc pro tunc direct appeal: (1) are reviewable on direct appeal under Commonwealth v. Bomar [ 573 Pa. 426 ], 826 A.2d 831 (Pa.2003); (2) should instead be deferred to collateral review under the general rule in Commonwealth v. Grant [ 572 Pa. 48 ], 813 A.2d 726 (Pa.2002) that defendants should wait until the collateral review phase to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; or (3) should instead be deemed reviewable on direct appeal only if accompanied by a specific waiver of the right to pursue a first PCRA petition as of right. See Commonwealth v. Wright [ 599 Pa. 270 ], 961 A.2d 119 , 148 n. 22 (Pa.2008) (“Prolix collateral claims should not be reviewed on post-verdict motions unless the defendant waives his right to PCRA review... see also Commonwealth v. Liston [ 602 Pa. 10 ], 977 A.2d 1089, 1095-1101 (Pa. 2009) (Castille, C.J., concurring, joined by Saylor, J., & Eakin, J.).”

quoted by 6 later decisions, including 2011 Pa. Super. 191 - Commonwealth v. Blye, 2011 Pa. Super. 147 - Commonwealth v. Barnett

Relies on Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Bomar · Commonwealth v. Wright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2010-06-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2 AND NOW, this 4th day of June 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as rephrased, is:

Whether the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which are the exclusive subject of this nunc pro tunc direct appeal: (1) are renewable on direct appeal under Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (2003); (2) should instead be deferred to collateral review under the general rule in Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002) that defendants should wait until the collateral review phase to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; or (3) should instead be deemed reviewable on *210 direct appeal only if accompanied by a specific waiver of the right to pursue a first PCRA petition as of right. See Commonwealth v. Wright, 599 Pa. 270, 961 A.2d 119, 148 n. 22 (2008) (“Prolix collateral claims should not be reviewed on post-verdict motions unless the defendant waives his right to PCRA review....”); see also Commonwealth v. Liston, 602 Pa. 10, 977 A.2d 1089,1095-1101 (2009) (Castille, C.J., concurring, joined by Saylor, J., & Eakin, J.).
/606/pa/209 · .json · Public domain