Court Opinion

ID: 9709156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:41:33.216697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:46.449601
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
After giving lip service to this Court’s duty to read pro se PCHA petitions liberally, the majority finds appellant’s petition defective based on a myopic and unjustifiably narrow reading of that petition. I dissent.
As the majority notes, appellant’s petition claimed ineffectiveness of both trial and appellate counsel. The facts underlying appellant’s claim of ineffective trial counsel are clear. The majority now holds that the claim of ineffective appellate counsel is waived because no facts were alleged to support it. It is common sense that appellant’s claim of ineffective appellate counsel was that appellate counsel did not raise an issue he should have raised — trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. Holding appellant’s ineffective appellate counsel claim waived under these circumstances can hardly be called a liberal reading of this pro se PCHA petition.
I respectfully dissent.