Case Title: Comm. v. Rega, R.G., Aplt. (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-155-2006] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ROBERT GENE REGA, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Nos. 506 & 507 CAP Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on June 21, 2002, in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County at CP- 33-CR-0000026-2001 and CP-33-CR- 0000524-2001 ARGUED: December 5, 2006 CONCURRING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: October 17, 2007 I join the majority opinion subject to similar concerns raised by Justice Castille in his concurring opinion regarding the scope of the “Bomar1 exception” to this court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002). I agree with Justice Castille that “we should examine more squarely the procedural question of whether and when criminal defendants … should be afforded the post-verdict and direct appeal unitary review which occurred in Bomar.” Concurring Opinion at 2 (Castille, J.). My fear is that continued employment of the “Bomar exception” will eventually swallow the rule we announced in Grant governing the presentation of ineffectiveness claims. 1 Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003).