Court Opinion

ID: 9734889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:50:02.345263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:52.128158
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice CAPPY,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion subject to similar concerns raised by Justice Castille in his concurring opinion regarding the scope of the “Bomar1 exception” to this court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002). I agree with Justice Castille that “we should examine more squarely the procedural question of whether and when criminal defendants ... should be afforded the post-verdict and direct appeal unitary review which occurred in Bomar.” Concurring Opinion at 715, 933 A.2d at 1030 (Castille, J.). My fear is that continued employment of the “Bomar exception” will eventually swallow the rule we announced in Grant governing the presentation of ineffectiveness claims.

. Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (2003).