Commonwealth v. Holmes, 621 Pa. 595

This case reviews whether ineffectiveness claims can be raised on direct appeal or post-verdict motions under Bomar, Grant, and related precedent.
Grant generally defers ineffectiveness claims to PCRA collateral review; Bomar created a narrow direct-review exception in pre-Grant/post-verdict contexts.
Liston, Wright, and their concurrences questioned Bomar’s expansion and urged waivers of PCRA review for unitary review in certain cases.
The defendant sought reinstatement of direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc and raised numerous ineffectiveness claims in a PCRA petition.
The trial court addressed some claims; the Superior Court remanded, and this Court granted allocatur to decide the proper framework.
The Court ultimately reaffirms Grant, limits Bomar, and authorizes two narrow exceptions: extraordinary-record merit claims and a good-cause/PCRA-waiver path for unitary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper scope of Grant vs. Bomar rule	Holmes argues Bomar expands review improperly.	Commonwealth argues deferral to PCRA unless Bomar facts apply.	Grant rule controls; Bomar limits narrowly.
May unitary (hybrid) review occur with a PCRA waiver	Appellee contends waiving PCRA rights allows unitary review for prolix claims.	Commonwealth resists wide Bomar-like expansion; waiver should be strict.	Yes, but only with good cause and explicit PCRA waiver.
Exception for extraordinary, record-based claims	Distinct, meritorious record-based claims deserve immediate review.	Exception undermines deferral and equality of review.	Approved as a limited discretionary exception.
Impact of Martinez and Trevino on state review framework	Martinez/Trevino push broader review rights for trial-counsel issues.	No substantive constitutional right to post-conviction counsel in Pennsylvania.	Martinez/Trevino influence acknowledged; PA retains PCRA framework with limits.

Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (created a direct-review exception to Grant in pre-Grant posture)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (general rule to defer ineffective-assistance claims to PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Liston, 977 A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2009) (concurrences limit Bomar and advocate waiver-driven unitary review)
Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) (prolix collateral claims require PCRA waiver for post-verdict review)
Commonwealth v. O’Berg, 880 A.2d 597 (Pa. 2005) (short-sentence concerns and post-verdict unitary review cautions)
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (concurring views criticizing broad Bomar expansion)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (Bomar context for direct-appeal review of ineffectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Martin v. Ryan, Martinez v. Ryan (Supreme Court, 2012) (recognizes a federal-equity exception for trial-counsel failures in limited circumstances)
Trevino v. Thaler, Tre-Vino (Supreme Court, 2013) (extends Martinez framework to additional contexts)