Title: Comm. v. Johnson, Aplt (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-119-2000] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ANTONIO LAMONT JOHNSON, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 30 W.D. Appeal Docket 2000 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered September 1, 1999 at No. 131PGH97 affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered December 17, 1996 at No. CC 9604874 SUBMITTED: October 2, 2000 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: MAY 21, 2001 Although I agree with the majority that Appellant is not entitled to relief, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Superior Court erred in concluding that Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was waived. In Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998), this Court clearly stated, “Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.” Id. at 309. Under the majority’s analysis in the instant case, however, an appellant may now ignore the mandate of Lord and still obtain appellate review of an issue that was not included in a 1925(b) statement simply by claiming that counsel was ineffective for failing to include the issue in the 1925(b) statement. By allowing an appellant 2 to employ such a tactic to obtain review of an otherwise waived issue, the majority is, in effect, rendering 1925(b) and the Lord mandate meaningless. Here, since Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim regarding the adequacy of the jury waiver colloquy was not contained in his 1925(b) statement, I would find that the claim is waived.1 Messrs. Justice Castille and Saylor join in the concurring and dissenting opinion. 1 Appellant, however, may still seek relief for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§9541 et seq.