Court Opinion

ID: 9860433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:21:44.472652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:45.115026
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel for failure to call Ms. Potter as a witness was waived and therefore cannot be raised in the instant PCRA petition.
Claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are deemed waived. Commonwealth v. McGriff, 432 Pa.Super. 467, 473, 638 A.2d 1032, 1035 (1994). Claims of ineffectiveness of counsel “must be raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings at which the allegedly ineffective counsel is no longer representing the claimant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 537 Pa. 447, 454, 644 A.2d 1167, 1170 (1994). Therefore, allegations of ineffectiveness by trial counsel should have been raised on direct appeal.1 Because the ineffectiveness of trial counsel was not raised as an issue on the direct appeal that claim is waived. If, however, trial counsel had represented appellant on direct appeal and faded to raise the issue of the uncalled witness, new counsel representing appellant on her PCRA petition could have alleged the ineffectiveness of that prior counsel.
The majority emphasizes that although the exception of “extraordinary circumstances” was removed from the language of the statute, ineffectiveness of counsel is still an exception to the waiver rule. The majority cites numerous cases, brought prior to the 1995 amendments, which recognize that ineffectiveness of counsel provides an exception to the waiver rule. In those cases, however, the alleged ineffectiveness of counsel occurred in the proceeding in which the otherwise waived issue should have been raised. In the instant case, waiver occurred in the direct appeal when appellate counsel failed to raise the issues of the uncalled witness and *1156the ineffectiveness of trial counsel. Therefore, an allegation of the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel would have provided an exception to the waiver rule. In the instant PCRA petition, however, the ineffectiveness alleged is that of the trial counsel, not of appellate counsel.
Even if the removal of the language excepting extraordinary circumstances from the waiver rule does not abolish the exception for ineffective counsel, appellant still does not fall within an exception to waiver under the PCRA. The ineffectiveness of trial counsel can in no way excuse the failure of appellate counsel to raise the issues of the uncalled witness or ineffectiveness of trial counsel on direct appeal.

. Appellant’s appellate counsel represents her on this PCRA petition.