J-S31037-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TYREE VINCE CURRY-BERRY

Appellant No. 1179 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of July 2, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County

Criminal Division at No: CP-38-CR-0001360-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., ALLEN, J., and WECHT, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY WECHT, J.: FILED JULY 10, 2015

Tyree Curry-Berry appeals the July 2, 2014 judgment of sentence. We 

affirm.

Following a jury trial, Curry-Berry was convicted of burglary, 

conspiracy to commit burglary, conspiracy to commit trespass, and two 

counts of conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking based upon his 

involvement in the breaking into a residence with two other individuals and 

stealing jewelry and firearms. On July 2, 2014, the trial court sentenced 

Curry-Berry to an aggregate term of two to seven years’ incarceration. 

On July 8, 2014, Curry-Berry filed a notice of appeal. In response, the 

trial court directed Curry-Berry to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Curry-Berry timely 
J-S31037-15

- 2 -

filed a concise statement. On September 8, 2014, the trial court issued an 

opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

In this appeal, Curry-Berry presents the following issues for our 

review:

1. Whether [Curry-Berry] was denied a fair trial when his trial 

counsel was ineffective for:

A. Failing to file [Pa.R.Crim.P. 600] motions on [CurryBerry’s] behalf seeking nominal bail; and 

B. Failing to adequately meet with [Curry-Berry] in order 

to prepare for trial so as to effectively prepare for the 

cross-examining of witnesses.

Brief for Curry-Berry at 4. 

Both of Curry-Berry’s issues involve claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel (“IAC”). Pursuant to the current state of our law, these claims are 

not cognizable on direct appeal. Rather, they must be raised in the first 

instance in a subsequent Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition.1 In 

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013), our Supreme Court 

considered “the reviewability of claims of IAC on direct appeal.” Id. at 563. 

Following a comprehensive review of the language codified in the PCRA and 

decisions from our courts, the Court reaffirmed the principle that IAC claims 

must be deferred until collateral review, and, thus are not reviewable on 

direct appeal. Id. at 563, 564. The Court crafted two exceptions to this 

____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46.
J-S31037-15

- 3 -

general proscription. Id. First, the Court held that a trial court may, in its 

discretion, entertain IAC claims where extraordinary circumstances exist 

such that review of the claim would best serve the interests of justice. Id.

at 564, 579-80. Second, the Court reposed discretion in trial courts to 

review IAC claims during post-sentence motions only if there is good cause 

shown, and the unitary review so indulged is preceded by the defendant’s 

knowing and express waiver of his or her entitlement to seek PCRA review 

from his or her conviction and sentence, including an express recognition 

that the waiver subjects further collateral review to the time and serial 

restrictions of the PCRA. Id. at 563, 580.

There is no indication in the record that extraordinary circumstances 

exist in this case such that Curry-Berry’s IAC claims warrant review on direct 

appeal or that Curry-Berry expressly waived his right to PCRA review. 

Consequently, in light of Holmes, Curry-Berry’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel are not cognizable in this direct appeal. 

Judgement of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/10/2015