Court Opinion

ID: 9695308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:15:07.21384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.680946
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
The record of the PCHA hearing reveals that trial counsel deliberately chose not to pursue the objections which appellant now contends should have been pursued. Counsel did not object to the interrogating officer’s redirect testimony regarding the presence of appellant’s attorney at the stationhouse because the attorney was present only after appellant had made an exculpatory statement. In counsel’s judgment, the redirect testimony “tended to corroborate” the exculpatory statement. Counsel refrained from objecting to the prosecutor’s closing reference to gang activity on the basis of his determination that the references were helpful to appellant’s defense in light of the evidence indicating that appellant had not been a gang member. As I am satisfied that these strategic decisions had “some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interests,” Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 604, 235 A.2d *516349, 352 (1967), I agree with the majority that appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance do not warrant relief.*
O’BRIEN, C. J., joins in this concurring opinion.

 Because the record establishes that counsel’s strategy was reasonable, the majority’s discussion of whether the objections would have been successful is unnecessary.