Com. v. Rosado, F., 2474 EDA 2014

Frankie Rosado was convicted in 2012 of indecent assault, corruption of minors, and unlawful contact with a minor and sentenced to 33–69 months’ imprisonment.
Post-sentencing appellate counsel filed a Rule 1925(b) statement preserving three issues, attached a post-sentence motion to that statement, and asked for time to file a final concise statement but never filed one.
Counsel then filed an appellate brief that abandoned the preserved issues and raised only an unpreserved sufficiency claim; the Superior Court found that sufficiency claim waived and summarily affirmed.
Rosado filed a PCRA petition alleging appellate counsel was ineffective for abandoning preserved issues; the PCRA court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
The Superior Court initially reviewed under Strickland prejudice standards and affirmed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that abandoning all preserved issues in favor of unpreserved ones is per se ineffective assistance.
On remand the Superior Court ordered reinstatement of Rosado’s direct-appeal rights: counsel to file post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc, preserve issues clearly (no incorporation by reference), and the trial court to issue a new Rule 1925 opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether abandoning all preserved issues on appeal in favor of unpreserved issues constitutes per se ineffective assistance of counsel	Rosado: counsel’s abandonment of preserved issues is complete default that denies the functional equivalent of an appeal and is per se ineffective	Commonwealth: counsel’s conduct should be evaluated under Strickland — require showing of prejudice (not per se)	Court: Such abandonment is per se ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice is presumed
Whether Strickland or Cronic governs appellate counsel’s abandonment of preserved issues	Rosado: the conduct falls within Cronic’s category where prejudice may be presumed	Commonwealth: Strickland applies; defendant must prove prejudice	Court: Cronic-style per se rule applies to complete abandonment of preserved issues; Strickland did not apply here
Appropriate remedy for per se ineffective appellate assistance	Rosado: reinstate appellate rights and allow filing of post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc and a fresh appeal	Commonwealth: (implicit) denial of relief previously affirmed under Strickland	Court: Vacate prior denial, direct reinstatement steps — file nunc pro tunc post-sentence motions, preserve issues, new Rule 1925 opinion, and allow timely appeal

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (circumstances where counsel’s failure is so severe that prejudice may be presumed)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (Pa. adoption of Strickland two-prong ineffective assistance test)