Opinion ID: 1440383
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Direct Appeal Counsel's Sufficiency Argument

Text: Although this Court on direct appeal found that the evidence was sufficient to support his first-degree murder conviction, Appellant challenges appellate counsel's litigation of that issue. Appellant contends that counsel's allegedly deficient Statement of the Case and failure to file a reply brief or petition for reargument prevented this Court from resolving his claim properly. The PCRA court found that this Court addressed his underlying sufficiency claim on direct appeal, and thus considered his ineffectiveness claim previously litigated. See PCRA Court Op. at 9. As Appellant correctly notes, this claim is cognizable under the PCRA because we now consider an ineffectiveness claim to be a discrete legal ground for relief from the underlying claim. See Collins, 888 A.2d at 571. Thus, the PCRA court erred in finding this claim previously litigated. See id. Normally, we would remand this claim to the PCRA court to reconsider Appellant's ineffectiveness claim. However, this Court's holding in Collins does not negate the requirement that a petitioner must plead and prove properly all the elements of the Pierce test. See Washington, 927 A.2d at 594 (noting that even in situations where this Court would customarily remand for further development of claim by PCRA court, remand is unnecessary when petitioner fails to thoroughly plead and prove ineffectiveness elements) (internal quotation omitted). Appellant in the instant case argues the merits of his underlying claim in substantial depth and also argues prejudice, but fails to mention, let alone plead and prove, the reasonable strategy prong. Therefore, Appellant fails to prove that direct appeal counsel was ineffective. See Bracey, supra .