Opinion ID: 375749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cognizability on Direct Appeal

Text: 12 Before addressing these questions, we must determine whether the issue of effective assistance may be raised on direct appeal, or whether it is cognizable only in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1976). In United States v. Rad-O-Lite of Philadelphia, Inc., 12 an appeal from a criminal conviction, we declined to hear a claim of ineffective assistance because the contention was not raised in the district court. 13 Such claims frequently involve questions regarding conduct that occurred outside the purview of the district court and therefore can be resolved only after a factual development at an appropriate hearing. Because in most cases a defendant does not change counsel before final judgment is entered, ineffective assistance claims are rarely raised at trial and, therefore, can be brought to the attention of the district court only on collateral review under § 2255. When, as in the present case, however, the question of ineffective assistance is raised in the trial court, 14 there would appear to be no basis for avoiding adjudication of the claim on direct appeal. 15 Accordingly, we turn to the merits of Swinehart's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.