Court Opinion

ID: 9651091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:05:33.788075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:29.855518
License: Public Domain

Justice CASTILLE
dissenting.
The Court today stunningly grants state collateral relief from two death sentences based upon a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of direct appeal counsel while completely ignoring the governing constitutional standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court.1 Rather than following the two-part test for appellate counsel ineffectiveness reaffirmed in Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285-89, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000) (applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)), the Court applies a per se test. I do not know how the Court would resolve the question of appellate counsel’s stewardship if it applied the correct governing standard; but I do know that our duty under the United States Constitution, and our role vis a vis the United States Supreme Court where federal constitutional questions are involved, requires us to correctly identify and attempt to apply that standard. Because I do not believe that the Sixth Amendment means something different in Pennsylvania than it means in the rest of the Nation, I respectfully dissent.
*401The Court holds that appellant’s direct appeal counsel, who was other than his trial counsel, was per se ineffective under the Sixth Amendment because he allegedly failed to discover and pursue a non-record claim on that appeal which a majority of the Court, in hindsight, concludes would have had merit— specifically, a claim that trial counsel ineffectively represented appellant at the penalty phase of his capital trial. The Court’s per se approach to the question of appellate counsel’s stewardship is contrary to governing United States Supreme Court authority. See Robbins, 528 U.S. at 289, 120 S.Ct. 746 (petitioner “must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test in order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel”); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986); Strickland, supra; Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983). To properly understand the fundamental error in the Court’s approach to the substantive federal claim of counsel ineffectiveness appellant raises on this appeal, familiarity with certain procedural principles governing review of petitions for relief under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq., and certain undisputed facts in this case, is essential.
First, a Pennsylvania state prisoner is entitled to state collateral review and relief only insofar as the PCRA permits it, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hall, 565 Pa. 92, 771 A.2d 1232, 1235 (2001); and the PCRA dictates that a petitioner cannot pursue claims that are waived. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3). An issue is waived under the PCRA “if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal, or in a prior state postconviction proceeding.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) (emphasis supplied).2 See Commonwealth v. Bracey, 568 Pa. 264, 795 A.2d 935, 940 (2001) (claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not “are waived under the PCRA”); Commonwealth v. (Michael) Pierce, 567 Pa.186, 786 A.2d 203, 212 & n.6 (2001) (claims of *402trial court error or ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which could have been raised on direct appeal by new counsel but were not, are waived under PCRA).
Second, in determining what issues “could have been raised” on direct appeal — and thus are waived under the PCRA — the Court must consider whether the petitioner was represented by trial counsel, or by new counsel, on that appeal. This is so because claims of counsel ineffectiveness in Pennsylvania “ ‘must be raised at the earliest stage in the proceedings at which the allegedly ineffective counsel is no longer representing the claimant.’ ” Commonwealth v. Kenney, 557 Pa. 195, 732 A.2d 1161, 1164 (1999), quoting Commonwealth v. Griffin, 537 Pa. 447, 644 A.2d 1167, 1170 (1994). Accord Commonwealth v. Green, 551 Pa. 88, 709 A.2d 382, 384 (1998) (“It is well-established that a claim of ineffectiveness must be raised at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings at which counsel whose effectiveness is questioned no longer represents the defendant”); Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 372 A.2d 687, 695 n. 6 (1977). As a practical matter, under this Pennsylvania judicial rule, a criminal defendant represented by new counsel on direct appeal must raise claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness on that appeal or they will be defaulted, since , new counsel’s very presence means that the ineffectiveness claims, no less than claims of trial court error, will be waived under the PCRA. (Michael) Pierce, supra; Commonwealth v. Williams, 566 Pa. 553, 782 A.2d 517, 526 (2001) (“those claims that were not raised at the earliest opportunity (on direct appeal) would be deemed waived” under § 9544(b)); id. at 534 (Castille, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Marrero, 561 Pa. 100, 748 A.2d 202, 204 (2000) (Nigro, J., concurring) (pursuant to § 9544(b), “Appellant has waived all of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims by failing to present them at his first opportunity to do so when his trial counsel no longer represented him, which was on his direct appeal to this Court”).
Third, appellant here was represented by new counsel on his direct appeal. Indeed, that new counsel seized the opportunity to challenge trial counsel’s stewardship. Specifically, *403appellant claimed in his direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s allegedly inflammatory closing argument. This Court rejected the claim on the merits. See Commonwealth v. Ford, 539 Pa. 85, 650 A.2d 433, 442-43 (1994).
Fourth, since direct appeal counsel could have raised additional claims of trial court error or trial counsel ineffectiveness on that direct appeal, any claim that appellant now raises, which sounds in trial court error or trial counsel ineffectiveness, unquestionably is waived under the PCRA. On the other hand, claims sounding in the ineffectiveness of appellant’s direct appeal counsel are not waived under the PCRA, since this PCRA proceeding represents appellant’s “first opportunity to attack the stewardship of his prior appellate counsel.” Marrero, 748 A.2d at 204 (Nigro, J., concurring). See also (Michael) Pierce, 786 A.2d at 212. Such constitutional claims are cognizable under the PCRA. Id. at 213, citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(h) (1988 version).3 To prevail on a claim that counsel should have raised an issue on direct appeal, the PCRA specifically requires the petitioner to plead and prove that the failure to litigate the claim “could not have been the result of any rational, strategic or tactical decision by counsel.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(4). This requirement, of course, essentially tracks the Strickland test; thus, the Pennsylvania General Assembly has not approved the per se test invented by today’s Court.
Fifth, notwithstanding the PCRA’s explicit waiver provision, the counseled appellant here has elected to pose claims that sound almost entirely as waived issues of trial court error or trial counsel ineffectiveness. The only exceptions are appellant’s procedural claim that the PCRA court erred in denying a discovery request (Claim XXI), and a single claim which, although it does not mention appellate counsel by name or role, nevertheless adverts to the ineffectiveness of “all prior *404counsel” (Claim XIX). This global, so-called “layered” claim of counsel ineffectiveness, which appellant apparently intends to act to modify the claims he actually develops as waived claims of trial court error or trial counsel ineffectiveness, reads, in its entirety, as follows:
All prior counsels’ failures to properly investigate and present each and all of the issues presented in Appellant’s PCRA proceedings and in this appeal [sic] were ineffective. Each of these claims is of arguable merit; counsels’ failures had no reasonable strategic basis; and the errors, individually and collectively, undermined confidence in the outcome of the trial and sentencing, establishing prejudice. Appellant is entitled to a new trial. Commonwealth v. [Charles] Pierce, 515 Pa. 158, 158-59, 527 A.2d 973, 975-76 (1987); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Initial Brief of Appellant, 95. In addition, as the plurality and Madame Justice Newman’s concurrence note, in appellant’s argument on each of his claims he “tacks on a bald sentence” alleging that both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to pursue the waived claim of trial court error or trial counsel ineffectiveness that appellant actually develops. This is the extent to which appellant could be said to be raising claims sounding in the ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel.
Sixth, to the extent that appellant intends to pursue these non-waived claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness, as opposed to waived claims of trial court error or trial counsel ineffectiveness, it is apparent that appellant intends those claims to sound eoextensively under both the Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Indeed, in Claim XIX, appellant cites to both (Charles) Pierce and Strickland. In (Charles) Pierce, this Court held that the federal Strickland test was also the proper test to evaluate ineffectiveness claims raised under the Pennsylvania Constitution. 527 A.2d at 976-77. See also Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 724 A.2d 326, 332 (1999) (recognizing that test for counsel ineffectiveness under Strickland and Pierce is identical). The Third Circuit *405has likewise recognized that Pennsylvania’s standard for assessing claims of counsel ineffectiveness is materially identical to Strickland. Werts v. Vaughn, 228 F.3d 178, 203-04 (3d Cir.2000). Since the test for counsel ineffectiveness is the same under both charters, appellant’s claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness are governed by the Strickland/Pierce standard. Furthermore, it should be noted that, with respect to the claim upon which the Court awards relief, appellant’s underlying argument concerning trial counsel’s allegedly deficient performance is argued primarily as a matter of federal law, with heavy reliance upon federal authority.4 In short, there is no question that the issue upon which the Court grants relief is a federal claim, which triggers an obligation on this Court to faithfully identify and apply governing federal law.
Seventh, with respect to the contours of the governing standard for Sixth Amendment claims of counsel effectiveness, the United States Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that Strickland “announced a two-part test for evaluating claims that a defendant’s counsel performed so incompetently in his or her representation of a defendant that the defendant’s sentence or conviction should be reversed.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685,-, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 1850, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002).
We reasoned [in Strickland!] that there would be a sufficient indication that counsel’s assistance was defective enough to undermine confidence in a proceeding’s result if the defendant proved two things: first, that counsel’s “representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” 466 U.S., at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, and second, that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” id., at 694, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Without proof of both deficient performance and prejudice to the defense, we concluded, it *406could not be said that the sentence or conviction “resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that rendered the result of the proceeding unreliable,” id., at 687, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, and the sentence or conviction should stand.
Id. Bell also stressed, as Strickland had, that “ ‘[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential’ and that ‘every effort [must] be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.’” Id. at 1852, quoting Strickland, 466-U.S. at 689,104 S.Ct. 2052.
In analyzing claims of counsel ineffectiveness under Strick\&ná/Pierce in Pennsylvania, “[t]his Court has come to characterize the test as a tripartite one, by dividing the performance element-into two distinct parts, i.e., arguable merit and lack of reasonable basis.” Commonwealth v. Lambert, 568 Pa. 346, 797 A.2d 232, 243 n. 8 (2001) (Opinion Announcing Judgment of Court). Thus, in determining whether the defendant has successfully rebutted the constitutional presumption of attorney competence, courts in Pennsylvania applying the Strickland test look to whether: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) the particular course of conduct pursued by counsel could not have had some objectively reasonable basis designed to effectuate his interests; and (3) but for counsel’s ineffectiveness, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the challenged proceeding would have been different. (Michael) Pierce, 786 A.2d at 213; Kimball, 724 A.2d at 333. A failure to satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness will require rejection of the claim. Lambert, 797 A.2d at 241-43; (Michael) Pierce, 786 A.2d at 221-22; Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 720 A.2d 693, 701 (1998) (“If it is clear that Appellant has not demonstrated that counsel’s act or omission adversely affected the outcome of the proceedings, the claim may be dismissed on that basis alone and the court need not first determine whether the first and second prongs have been met.”). In short, “a court is not required to analyze the elements of an ineffectiveness claim in *407any particular order of priority; instead, if a claim fails under any necessary element of the Strickland test, the court may proceed to that element first.” Lambert, 797 A.2d at 243 n. 9, citing Robbins, 528 U.S. at 286 n. 14, 120 S.Ct. 746 and Albrecht, 720 A.2d at 701.
Eighth, and it is here that I fundamentally part ways with the Court, Sixth Amendment claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness are no less subject to the constitutional Strickland test than are claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness. Robbins, 528 U.S. at 289, 120 S.Ct. 746; (Michael) Pierce, 786 A.2d at 213 (analyzing claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness under settled Pierce/Strickland test); Commonwealth v. Balodis, 560 Pa. 567, 747 A.2d 341, 343 (2000) (plurality opinion by Cappy, J.) (“Application of the ‘reasonable basis’ test pertains to appellate advocacy as well as trial strategy”). Just last year, a majority of this Court purported to recognize this very point commanded by Robbins — i.e., that the Strickland test applies to claims that appellate counsel was ineffective. Commonwealth v. Williams, 566 Pa. 553, 782 A.2d 517, 525 (2001) (“PCRA counsel must, in pleadings and briefs, undertake to develop, to the extent possible, the nature of the claim asserted with respect to each individual facet of a layered ineffectiveness claim, including that which relates to appellate counsel.”) (emphasis supplied). As Mr. Justice Cappy also recently noted:
[I]t is essential to consider the independent actions of all prior counsel at each stage of the proceeding, as they relate to the current claim of error in the collateral proceeding. Tt is not enough for a petitioner to argue the merits of the underlying claim and the prejudice suffered. At the PCRA stage, a petitioner must go the next step and elucidate how the underlying claim of error was handled by, or overlooked by, each intervening attorney in order to present a cognizable claim for collateral relief.
Lambert, 797 A.2d at 248 n. 1 (Cappy, J., concurring).
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court’s governing decisional law in this area — which the plurality and the concurrences never acknowledge — recognizes that claims alleging *408the incompetence of appellate counsel must account for “concern's unique to appellate practice.” Thus,
Arguably meritorious claims may be omitted in favor of pursuing claims which, in the exercise of appellate counsel’s objectively reasonable professional judgment, offer a greater prospect of securing relief. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 750-54, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983). “[A]ppellate counsel ... need not (and should not) raise every nonfrivolous claim, but rather may select from among them in order to maximize the likelihood of success on appeal.” Robbins, 528 U.S. at 288, 120 S.Ct. 746 (characterizing Barnes). “This process of ‘winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on’ those more likely to prevail, far from being evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 536, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986), quoting Barnes, 463 U.S. at 751-52, 103 S.Ct. 3308. See also Buehl v. Vaughn, 166 F.3d 163, 174 (3d Cir.1999) (“One element of effective appellate strategy is the exercise of reasonable selectivity in deciding which arguments to raise.”).
Lambert, 797 A.2d at 244. As a state court sitting in review of a federal constitutional claim, we have no power to ignore the governing federal standards as laid down by the High Court. The Court’s failure today even to account for the governing standards is perplexing, at best, and distressingly hostile to federal law, at worst.
With these governing principles and the relevant facts in mind, I turn to the Court’s analysis of the claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness upon which it grants relief. The Court preliminarily finds that appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present sufficient evidence of mitigation at the penalty phase. For purposes of this dissent, I shall assume the correctness of that predicate finding. The Court’s federal constitutional error occurs when it follows that preliminary finding with an ipso jure conclusion that appellate counsel was “ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in this regard.” I say ipso jure because the *409quotation above, which the plurality states twice, 809 A.2d at 330, 334, comprises the entire sum and substance of the Court’s analysis of appellate counsel’s performance. The per se analysis in Madame Justice Newman’s concurrence is no more illuminating. 809 A.2d at 336 (Newman, J., concurring).5
The Court’s analysis of trial counsel’s conduct, of course, is not the basis for its grant of state collateral relief for, as both the plurality and the concurrence recognize, that particular constitutional claim is waived under the PCRA. Instead, the finding respecting trial counsel is relevant only to the extent that it informs the Court’s summary legal conclusion that appellant’s counsel on direct appeal must have been ineffective for failing to uncover and present the claim respecting trial counsel. The Court’s per se approach to the question of appellate counsel’s constitutional competence is contrary to governing federal constitutional law, Robbins, supra; and, since the test under the Pennsylvania Constitution is coextensive, it is contrary to Pennsylvania constitutional law as well. (Charles) Pierce, supra. The Court’s approach is also squarely contrary to the PCRA, which specifically adopted the Strickland standard, and requires the petitioner to plead and prove “[t]hat the failure to litigate the issue prior to or during trial ... or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational, strategic or tactical decision by counsel”. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(4).
The Court’s failure to deem relevant and account for the actual performance of appellate counsel no doubt derives from the fact that appellant has never attempted, in the PCRA hearing below or in his brief on this appeal, to rebut the *410constitutional presumption that appellate counsel was effective. In this regard, it is notable that, although appellant produced his trial counsel at the evidentiary hearing below, he did not call direct appeal counsel. Nor has there ever been any proffer from appellant as to what appellate counsel might say in response to the present accusation. The Court thus summarily grants relief upon a Sixth Amendment claim, and casually labels a member of the bar of this Court as a constitutionally incompetent appellate lawyer, despite having no factual record, or legal argument, that remotely accounts for the conduct of that lawyer, the only lawyer whose stewardship is subject to attack under the PCRA. The Court grants relief without displaying an awareness or concern for the actual federal constitutional value — competent appellate counsel — that is at stake. Thus, the Court makes no attempt to “reconstruct the circumstances” facing appellate counsel, or to “evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Bell; Strickland. Nor does the Court discuss the claims that counsel actually raised on appeal, much less explain why counsel was required to raise this claim in addition to, or instead of, the claims that were pursued. See Gray v. Greer, 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir.1986) (“Generally, only when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome.”), quoted until approval in Robbins, 528 U.S. at 288,120 S.Ct. 746. These are not technical deficiencies; they go to the very heart of the Sixth Amendment matter, since the Court’s per se standard effectively reverses the constitutional presumption that counsel was competent. The Court’s per se holding deems it irrelevant to consider, for example, what kind of investigation appellate counsel actually undertook with respect to this extra-record claim, i.e., whether he talked to his client, his client’s family, and to trial counsel respecting foregone potential mitigation evidence; whether appellant and his family disclosed any helpful information in that regard; whether trial counsel admitted his own ineptitude then as willingly as he later admitted it at the PCRA hearing; and whether appellate counsel performed legal research on the issue and, if so, what he found. For all the Court knows, *411appellate counsel’s communications and interactions with his client and trial counsel gave counsel no reason to pursue an ineffectiveness claim premised upon a deficient preparation for the penalty phase. Or, for all the Court knows, direct appeal counsel may have perceived the claim but determined, in his professional judgment, that the claims he actually pursued on appeal — which the Court never discusses — offered a greater prospect for relief under the law in existence at that time. Contrary to the Court’s erroneous view of the Sixth Amendment, appellate counsel is not automatically ineffective for failing to discover and pursue on appeal any and all possible claims — and especially non-record-based claims that depend critically upon admissions of incompetence from previous counsel.
To further complicate matters, as Madame Justice Newman’s Concurring Opinion recognizes, the plurality does not even afford equal treatment to appellant’s claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness. Appellant does not merely seek a new penalty hearing, but also a new trial. To that end, he has raised numerous claims arising from alleged errors at the guilt phase of his trial. These claims, like the claim upon which the Court grants relief, are reviewable only as claims sounding in appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness. Appellant’s argument respecting appellate counsel as to these claims is the very same boilerplate argument that the Court deems sufficient to warrant a finding of per se ineffectiveness and penalty phase relief — i.e., it is the single paragraph that comprises Argument XIX. As to appellant’s guilt phase claims, however, the plurality would conclude that the boilerplate argument is insufficient even to warrant merit review. 809 A.2d at 329-30 n. 4.6 And so, the very same, undeveloped argument is deemed by the plurality to be inadequate to trigger review of nineteen claims, but somehow adequate to warrant a per se finding of *412appellate counsel ineffectiveness in another instance. Thus, the plurality compounds the Court’s fundamental error in wrongly thinking that there are different Sixth Amendment standards governing trial counsel and appellate counsel by concluding that, within the sub-class of claims involving appellate counsel, different standards apply depending upon one’s opinion of how the issue was briefed. If there were no governing federal authority, I would not sign on to this tortured analysis. But, as is, the plurality’s analysis and peculiar sub-analysis is squarely contrary to the uniform Strickland standard laid down by the United States Supreme Court — a standard the plurality never acknowledges.
I realize that this is a difficult case, and any jurist with a modicum of experience recognizes the wisdom in Justice Holmes’ observation that “hard cases make bad law.” Northern Securities v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 400-01, 24 S.Ct. 436, 48 L.Ed. 679 (1904) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The Court is obviously and rightly concerned with trial counsel’s disturbing testimony at the PCRA hearing below regarding mitigation investigation being a “blind spot” in his trial practice— testimony which I believe warrants a referral to the Disciplinary Board.7 I therefore might understand if the Court determined that trial counsel’s admission was so egregious that it would remand for a hearing respecting appellate counsel, notwithstanding appellant’s failure to develop that claim here, even though such a holding would have to be explained and justified in light of our abrogation of the relaxed waiver rule on PCRA review in Albrecht.8 Such is the course recom*413mended by Mr. Justice Eakin in his separate dissent. Such a procedural holding, though inconsistent with current Pennsylvania law, at least would not offend the Federal Constitution. *414But the Court goes much farther than resurrecting a flawed state procedural doctrine in devising a per se test to resolve the Sixth Amendment claim respecting appellate counsel here. The Court undertakes to “relax” the substantive federal standard by refusing to apply it. If there must inevitably be bad law resulting from this hard case, I would prefer that it be confined to a state procedural matter that we might attempt to explain or correct. On the substantive question here, however, the inescapable fact is that trial counsel’s belated confession of ineptitude does not control the constitutional inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the appellate litigation decisions made by direct appeal counsel. The outright grant of penalty phase relief here is, in short, perplexingly erroneous under United States Supreme Court authority — authority the Court inexplicably fails even to acknowledge.
The United States Supreme Court’s certiorari docket is sufficiently overburdened that it -will likely prove unable to correct the very palpable failure of this Court to identify and apply the governing Sixth Amendment ¿uthority, and remand this case for actual consideration under the Strickland standard. I am left, then, to hope that, in the near future, this Court will correct, on its own accord, today’s inexplicable failure to faithfully discharge our duty under the Federal Constitution. Because I would follow the governing constitutional authority in deciding the Sixth Amendment claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness presented here, irrespective of my view concerning the underlying claim involving trial counsel, I respectfully dissent from today’s grant of relief.

. Although the Concurring Opinion by Madame Justice Newman, which is joined by Mr. Justice Saylor, does not join the three-Justice plurality opinion, the concurrence agrees with the plurality in applying the same constitutionally erroneous, per se approach to the question of appellate counsel ineffectiveness. Thus, the concurrence acknowledges that appellant’s argument as to direct appeal counsel's ineffectiveness consists of mere "boilerplate" and "tag lines," 809 A.2d at 335-36 & n. 2 (Newman, J., concurring), but agrees with the plurality that the mere generic allegation is enough to prove appellate counsel ineffective. Neither the plurality nor Madame Justice Newman’s Concurrence deem an inquiry into appellate counsel’s actual performance to be relevant or necessary to the question of his effectiveness. The failure of the Court even to account for the governing federal standard or at least to distinguish the applicable standards is, to say the least, distressing.

. By order dated August 11, 1997, this Court suspended § 9544(b) insofar as it references “unitary review.” That suspension is not pertinent here.

. Although this PCRA petition, unlike the one in (Michael) Pierce, is governed by the 1995 amendments to the PCRA, § 9543(a)(2)(h), which recognizes claims of counsel ineffectiveness, was unchanged by those amendments.

. That appellant’s claims sound primarily in federal law is unsurprising since he is represented in this state proceeding by federal capital habeas corpus counsel associated with the Defender Association of Philadelphia, who no doubt have their eye on federal review should appellant's quest for state collateral relief fail.

. The concurrence cites dicta from the Williams case to the effect that a “primary avenue” of proving appellate counsel’s “lack of stewardship” is through establishing the merit of the foregone claims. Id., citing Williams, 782 A.2d at 525 n. 5. The fact that a claim appears to have arguable merit in hindsight, however, says nothing about the objective reasonableness of appellate counsel’s performance on appeal — which requires an assessment of the case from appellate counsel’s perspective. This is especially so in a case, like this one, where the claim is a non-record one. In such an instance, we simply cannot pretend, as the plurality and concurrence do, that an inquiry into appellate counsel's actual performance is irrelevant.

. Although the plurality never uses the word “waiver/' its finding in fact is a waiver finding, since it explicitly states that it is refusing to engage in a merit review of the claims of ineffectiveness. Its finding in this regard is in conflict with Commonwealth v. Williams, 566 Pa. 553, 782 A.2d 517, 525 (2001) and Commonwealth v. Marrero, 561 Pa. 100, 748 A.2d 202 (2000). See Lambert, 797 A.2d at 242-43 (discussing Williams and Marrero).

. See Pa. R.P.C. 1.1 and comment. Rule 1.1 provides as follows:
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation necessary for the representation.

. In his separate Concurring Opinion, Mr. Justice Saylor responds to this dissent by suggesting that this Court overrule our decisions holding that Albrecht, which enforced the PCRA waiver provision and abrogated the judicial relaxed waiver doctrine on PCRA review, should be applied to petitions pending when Albrecht was decided. The effect of recasting Albrecht as a purely prospective decision, and reinstituting relaxed waiver, would be to ignore that appellant’s claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness is barred under the terms of the PCRA which, in turn, *413would avoid the necessity of addressing whether appellate counsel was ineffective. In my Concurring Opinion in Bracey, I addressed at length why I believe that (1) Albrecht was correctly decided, as it merely enforced the PCRA's waiver provision which had been wrongly subverted by relaxed waiver, and (2) our decisions on the retroactivity of Albrecht were also correctly decided, in light of the actual purpose, scope and history of the doctrine. 795 A.2d at 951--57 (Castille, J., concurring). Justice Saylor does not dispute that, assuming that Albrecht applies to this appeal — which is what the plurality and the lead concurrence assume — the claim that appellate counsel was ineffective must be analyzed pursuant to the constitutional standard set forth in Strickland and Robbins. My disagreement with the plurality and the concurrences is that the claim here is not decided pursuant to the governing federal standard.
I add some additional comment respecting the relevance of the fact that some federal habeas courts have determined that the state procedural default resulting from our enforcing the PCRA waiver provision after Albrecht is not an adequate state procedural ground warranting deference on federal review. The federal habeas question of adequate state procedural grounds is distinct from the question of Pennsylvania law we faced in Albrecht, i.e., whether to continue subverting a valid statutory default via a misplaced, discretionary judicial doctrine. A federal court looking at the adequacy of a state procedural default for habeas purposes is not concerned with whether the default is based upon a statute, rule, or case law, or even with whether the default has an unconstitutionally retroactive effect. Instead, the broader habeas inquiry is concerned with how settled and consistently applied the default was at the time the default occurred. In determining the distinct question of the propriety of relaxed waiver upon PCRA review, this Court could not overlook the fact that the default is statutory, and that any application of relaxed waiver which would defeat the statute was erroneous. Similarly, in later determining the question of retroactivity, we could not refuse to apply Albrecht without flouting the statutory provision.
Even aside from the fact that the inquiries facing this Court in Albrecht and Commonwealth v. Pursell, 555 Pa. 233, 724 A.2d 293 (1999), required a different calculus than that employed by federal habeas courts examining the federal question of procedural default adequacy, I do not agree with the federal courts’ assessment of the adequacy of Albrecht since I believe their conclusion is premised upon a mistakenly absolutist view of the scope of relaxed waiver. See Bracey, supra (Castille, J., concurring); Williams, 782 A.2d at 533 n. 1 (Castille, J., concurring). I am, of course, concerned with the views and opinions of our federal colleagues on questions of Pennsylvania state procedural law. However, I do not accept those views as controlling where, as in the case of relaxed waiver, I respectfully believe them to have misapprehended the scope of our doctrine.