Court Opinion

ID: 9728453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:08:13.935358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:48.716234
License: Public Domain

NIGRO, Justice,
Concurring and Dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority that Appellant is not entitled to relief, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Superior Court erred in concluding that Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was waived. In Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998), this Court clearly stated, “Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.” Id. at 309. Under the majority’s analysis in the instant case, however, an appellant may now ignore the mandate of Lord and still obtain appellate review of an issue that was not included in a 1925(b) statement simply by claiming that counsel was ineffective for failing to include *65the issue in the 1925(b) statement. By allowing an appellant to employ such a tactic to obtain review of an otherwise waived issue, the majority is, in effect, rendering 1925(b) and the Lord mandate meaningless.
Here, since Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim regarding the adequacy of the jury waiver colloquy was not contained in his 1925(b) statement, I would find that the claim is waived.1
Justices CASTILLE and SAYLOR join in the concurring and dissenting opinion.

. Appellant, however, may still seek relief for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 et seq.