Court Opinion

ID: 9637618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:12:42.711911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:57.965118
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Spaeth, J.:
I agree that the result reached by Judge Price is required by Glam, which establishes that an issue not raised at trial is to be considered as waived by the defendant, or, more accurately, that the defendant will be held estopped to raise the issue on direct appeal. But Glam does not preclude appellant from raising at a PCHA hearing the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel if the waiver at trial was a result of that ineffectiveness. Thus it is not, in my view, accurate to say that “appellant has waived her claim of double jeopardy.” To me, this implies a knowing waiver. In fact, however, it may be that counsel never advised appellant of her right not to be placed in double jeopardy, and that she did not know she had that right. If this is the case, appellant may well be entitled to a new trial, for I find it hard to imagine any rational tactical reason why counsel would not plead a complete defense such as double jeopardy.