Commonwealth v. Holmes, 996 A.2d 479

Commonwealth v. Holmes

996 A.2d 479

Pa.

2010

Check Treatment

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of June 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as rephrased, is:

Whether the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which are the exclusive subject of this nunc pro tunc direct appeal: (1) are renewable on direct appeal under Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (2003); (2) should instead be deferred to collateral review under the general rule in Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002) that defendants should wait until the collateral review phase to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; or (3) should instead be deemed reviewable on *210 direct appeal only if accompanied by a specific waiver of the right to pursue a first PCRA petition as of right. See Commonwealth v. Wright, 599 Pa. 270, 961 A.2d 119, 148 n. 22 (2008) (“Prolix collateral claims should not be reviewed on post-verdict motions unless the defendant waives his right to PCRA review....”); see also Commonwealth v. Liston, 602 Pa. 10, 977 A.2d 1089,1095-1101 (2009) (Castille, C.J., concurring, joined by Saylor, J., & Eakin, J.).