Court Opinion

ID: 9692186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:46:05.262005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:32.750632
License: Public Domain

Justice NIGRO
dissenting.
I dissent, as I agree with Justice Saylor that Appellant has demonstrated that his trial-counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present evidence of mitigation, including evidence of Appellant’s mental health and abusive childhood, at his penalty phase hearing. Appellant, however, has presented only a boilerplate allegation that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in this regard. Thus, as the majority notes, Appellant has not preserved an ineffectiveness claim arising from appellate counsel’s deficient performance and such a claim is the only one on which relief may be granted. See Op. at 68-70, 863 A.2d at 512. Given these circumstances, I would, consistent with this Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth *90v. McGill, 574 Pa. 574, 832 A.2d 1014 (2003), remand the matter to provide Appellant with the opportunity to develop his claim as it relates to appellate counsel’s performance.