green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…we now hold that, as a general rule, a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Com. v. Anushiem, A.
we now hold that, as a general rule, a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Com. v. Mader, G.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
we now hold that, as a general rule, a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. S.,K.
See, Com. v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 , S63 (Pa. 2013) (trial court may entertain such claims, but only if (I) there is good cause shown, and (2) "the unitary review so indulged is preceded by the defendant's knowing and express waiver of his entitlement to seek PCRA review from his I Com. v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 813 A.2d 726, 738 (2002), clarified on denial of reargument, S13 Pa. 141, 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) (Per Curiam). 3 ., e, conviction and sentence, including an express recognition that the waiver subjects further collateral review to the time and serial petition restrictions of the PCRA." Id. 56…
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Pittinger, A.
See Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726, 738 (Pa. 2002), clarified on denial of reargument, 821 A.2d 1246 (Pa. 2003). (“petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review”) (footnote omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Geraci
See Commonwealth v. Grant, 573 Pa. 1246 , 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) (denial of reargument).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Geraci
See Commonwealth v. Grant, — Pa. -, 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) (denial of reargument).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Cintron, L.
Commonwealth v. Collins, 888 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002), clarified on denial of reargument 821 A.2d 1246 (Pa. 2003), holdinginodified by Commonealth v. Bethea 828 A.2d 1066 (Pa. 2003) (holding that as a general rule, a defendant should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. O'Berg
(4×)
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Grant, 573 Pa. 141 , 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) (clarifying that Grant will “not apply to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel where the immediate appellate court on direct appeal has rendered a disposition on the merits.”) Indeed, immediately following our decision in Grant, the Superior Court applied Grant in certain cases and ignored Grant in favor of a “short sentence” exception in other cases.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee,
v.
Taibu Modamu GRANT A/K/A Bryant Damu Taibu A/K/A/ Tyrone Gramm, Appellant
v.
Taibu Modamu GRANT A/K/A Bryant Damu Taibu A/K/A/ Tyrone Gramm, Appellant
57 WAP 2001.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 28, 2003.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2003, the Application for Reargument is DENIED. We clarify that the rule announced in Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa.2002), does not apply to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel where the intermediate appellate court on direct appeal has rendered a disposition on the merits.