Com. v. Conigliaro, S., Com. v. Conigliaro, S. No. 2809 EDA 2016

Appellant Salvatore Conigliaro was charged with multiple offenses including corruption of minors and indecent assault of a child; after a negotiated stipulated bench trial he was convicted on two counts and sentenced to imprisonment and probation.
Trial counsel advised and implemented a waiver of live witnesses and a stipulated-evidence bench trial, which the parties negotiated to avoid child testimony.
Appellant, through post-conviction counsel, filed a counseled PCRA petition alleging various instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to subpoena/call witnesses, inadequate preparation, failure to advise of right to testify, failure to obtain a Spanish interpreter, and claims about waiver of jury).
The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to deny without a hearing; counsel did not file a response and the petition was denied.
On appeal, Appellant raised a single new claim: that trial counsel failed to advise him of adverse immigration consequences from accepting the stipulated bench trial.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the immigration-advice claim was waived because it was not raised in the PCRA petition or the Rule 1925(b) statement, and therefore the court did not reach the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Conigliaro of adverse immigration consequences from accepting a stipulated bench trial	Conigliaro: counsel failed to advise him that stipulated bench conviction would have immigration consequences, constituting ineffective assistance	Commonwealth/PCRA court: claim was not raised in the PCRA petition or Rule 1925(b) statement and thus is waived; counsel presumed effective	Waived on appeal for failure to raise in PCRA petition and Rule 1925(b); PCRA dismissal affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance two-prong test)
Pierce v. Commonwealth, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (sets three-prong PCRA ineffective-assistance standard)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA court may deny hearing if claim patently frivolous/no record support)
Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2003) (issues not raised in PCRA petition are waived on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues omitted from Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)
Commonwealth v. Hanford, 937 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2007) (new legal theories cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
Commonwealth v. McDermitt, 66 A.3d 810 (Pa. Super. 2013) (counsel presumed effective; burden on defendant to prove otherwise)