Title: Comm. v. Moore, Aplt (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1WAP2000, J-97-2000
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: August 29, 2002

[J-97-2000] THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee, v. RAYMOND MOORE, Appellant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 1 WAP 2000 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered August 23, 1999 at No. 1429PGH1998 reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, entered July 21, 1998 at No. CC8811439. SUBMITTED: May 15, 2000 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE NEWMAN DECIDED: AUGUST 28, 2002 I join the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Castille. I write separately to emphasize my disagreement with the assertion by the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court, in footnote 3, that Commonwealth v. Pursell, 555 Pa. 233, 724 A.2d 293 (1999), requires this Court to treat Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of post conviction counsel as ripe for review, even though presented for the first time in a petition for allowance of appeal. Pursell was an appeal from the dismissal of a timely post conviction petition in a capital case. Although we examined Pursell's claims of ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel, that review occurred in the context of our mandatory appellate jurisdiction in PCRA capital cases. Mandatory capital PCRA appellate review [J-97-2000] - 2 implicates considerations that simply are not present in a petition for allowance of appeal, in a non-capital PCRA case, where it is within our discretion to accept or decline review. Consequently, I do not believe that our capital PCRA jurisprudence serves as a useful paradigm for resolving this problem within our system of discretionary review. I agree with Mr. Justice Castille's position that the allocatur process is not designed for review of claims of ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel raised in a petition for allowance of appeal. This Court does a disservice to the allocatur process -- the vehicle by which we set policy for the Commonwealth on "special and important" matters -- when we entertain claims for which there has been no prior appellate review.