Opinion ID: 2320238
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Request for Restoration of Right to Direct Appeal

Text: Appellant next requests the restoration of his direct appellate rights nunc pro tunc, alleging that the notes of testimony of May 8, 1995, the first day of voir dire proceedings, were and remain[ [15] ] unavailable to him. (Brief of Appellant at 42). Consequently, according to Appellant, he has been denied his right to meaningful direct review of claims that may be disclosed by the missing transcript. ( Id. at 43). To ensure the right of a criminal defendant to meaningful appellate review, we require that he or she be furnished a full transcript or other equivalent picture of the trial proceedings. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 720 A.2d 693, 701 (1998) (quoting Commonwealth v. Shields, 477 Pa. 105, 383 A.2d 844, 846 (1978)). Nevertheless, [t]o be entitled to relief due to the incompleteness of the trial record the defendant must make some potentially meritorious challenge which cannot be adequately reviewed due to the deficiency in the transcript. Id. In the instant case, the closest approximation to a potentially meritorious challenge based on the portion of the voir dire transcript at issue is Appellant's mere speculative statement, appearing in a footnote, that [c]ounsel has . . . identified error from the voir dire transcripts ths [sic] far provided, creating a likelihood that the missing ones will show similar error. (Brief of Appellant at 43 n. 53). Such a conclusory allegation is utterly insufficient to raise a colorable question of whether due process was violated by the alleged unavailability of the notes of a particular day's testimony. Albrecht, 720 A.2d at 701 (rejecting appellant's bald[] assert[ion] that there may have been some improper questions on cross-examination which the trial court failed to remedy); see also Commonwealth v. Blystone, 555 Pa. 565, 725 A.2d 1197, 1201 n. 9 (1999) (denying request for restoration of right to direct appeal in light of appellant's fail[ure] to present any specific evidence to demonstrate that there may be a cognizable claim contained within the untranscribed voir dire proceedings). [16] Thus, the underlying claim of the instant issue lacks merit, and counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise it. Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269, 701 A.2d 190, 203 (1997).