Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Commonwealth v. Holmes

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT


June 4, 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PETITIONER
v.
JUSTIN DAVID HOLMES, RESPONDENT

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court.

Per curiam.

ORDER

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 reviewable on direct appeal under Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003); (2) should instead be deferred to collateral review under the general rule in Commonwealth v. Grant, 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, 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, 977 A.2d 1089, 1095-1101 (Castille, C.J., concurring, joined by Saylor, J., & Eakin, J.).

20100604

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.