G Cite
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2015–2026→ Stable ·
…where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.
at p. 735
✓
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2019–2026→ Stable ·
…this court has previously held that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely un…
at p. 735
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Adams, C.
where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Savage, J.
where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Savage, J.
where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Langtry, T.
where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Temple, R.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
It is well- settled that “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Byrd, J.
However, “[t]his Court has previously held that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Luperi, M.
However, “[t]his Court has previously held that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post- sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Weiss, E.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Khalil, supra; Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003); Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 2024 WL 3738593 at *9, n.6 (Pa. Super. 2024)5 (“we have held that a breakdown in the operations of the court occurs when the trial court and clerk of court fail to enter an order denying a defendant’s post-sentence motion within the 120[-]day period”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shannon, L.
(4×)
However, “[t]his Court has previously held that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Luperi, M.
However, “[t]his Court has previously held that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Schuback, J.
It is well-established that “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the [parties] of the same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bailey, J.
It is well-established that “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant -3- J-S05039-25 of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003), citing Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super. 1995), appeal denied, 675 A.2d 1242 (Pa. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bailey, J.
It is well-established “that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in -3- J-S05039-25 the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003), citing Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super. 1995), appeal denied, 675 A.2d 1242 (Pa. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Boyd, Z.
We have held that under similar circumstances, this constitutes a “breakdown in the court system.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa.Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ginter, C.
It is well-established “that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003), citing Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super. 1995), appeal denied, 675 A.2d 1242 (Pa. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. O'Brien, M.
We have held that under similar circumstances, this constitutes a “breakdown in the court system.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa.Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Massey, M.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Carter, 122 A.3d 388, 391 (Pa. Super. 2015). “[W]here the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Edwards, K.
See Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037 , 1040 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2022); Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Marmillion, M.
In Commonwealth v. Perry, we noted this Court has held that “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Marmillion, M.
In Commonwealth v. Perry, we noted this Court has held that “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Sutton, R.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 , 137-38 -5- J-S34044-23 (Pa. Super. 1995) (in a case applying the predecessor to Rule 720, deeming an appellant’s notice of appeal timely filed, as it was filed within 30 days of the trial court’s untimely order denying appellant’s post-sentence motion).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bailey, D.
We have held that under similar circumstances, this constitutes a “breakdown in the court system.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa.Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Terry, K.
Terry has not shown how his aggregate 8-to-16-year term of imprisonment is grossly disproportionate to his conduct or how the imposition of sentences within the guidelines was clearly ____________________________________________ 3 We treat Terry’s notice of appeal as timely filed due to (1) the Commonwealth’s untimely post-sentence motion resulting in a bifurcated sentencing proceeding, see Commonwealth v. Cochran, 244 A.3d 413 (Pa. 2021), (2) Terry’s post-sentence motion filed 30 days after the amended order of sentence, (3) a breakdown in the operation of the court when the clerk of co…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Boggs, J.
See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 498 (Pa. Super. 2007) (collecting cases stating that “a court breakdown occurred in instances where the trial court, . . . either failed to advise [the a]ppellant of his post- sentence and appellate rights[,] or misadvised him.”); Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under the…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Smith, S.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Foster, J.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post- sentence motion is denied by operation of law … a breakdown in the court system has occurred…”); Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133, 137-38 (Pa. Super. 1995) (finding a breakdown where neither the trial court nor the clerk of courts issued an order denying the defendant’s post sentence motion within 120 days.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mitchell, T.
Whether all verdicts at all counts were against the weight of the evidence[.] ____________________________________________ 12 See Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appeal not quashed as untimely where clerk of court failed to enter order denying defendant’s post-sentence motion following motion’s denial by operation of law and failed to notify defendant of the same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. James, J
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Santiago-Rivera, T.
The docket reveals that on August 26, Appellant filed a notice of appeal, but the post-sentence motion was not denied by operation of law until three days thereafter, August 29th.4 However, “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Olinsky, J.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003). -5- J-A25009-22 4.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Willis, S.
However, “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jackson, M.
Appellant timely appealed on March 24, 2021.6 See Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“where the clerk of courts ____________________________________________ 5 The clerk of courts never entered an order denying Appellant’s August 7, 2020, post-sentence motion by operation of law, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(c) (“When a post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law, the clerk of courts shall [] enter an order on behalf of the court, and … shall serve a copy of the order on the” parties). 6Appellant purports to appeal from the February 26, 2021, orde…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Gordon, III, R.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Appellant filed a notice of appeal less than 30 days later. “[W]here the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003). -3- J-S34039-21 complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within 21 days, or by May 24, 2021.6 Appellant filed an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement on June 7, 2021.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Coleman, J., Jr.
Rather, on April 7, 2020, the trial court denied the motion on the merits, and Appellant appealed within 30 days. “[W]here the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003). 8 We have reordered Appellant’s issues for ease of disposition. -7- J-S01024-21 [4] Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on a Burgla…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Nardizzi, J.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa.Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Pilchesky, J.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rodriguez, J.
However, “[t]his Court has previously held that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kohr, D.
However, because the clerk of courts did not enter an order denying his post-sentence motion by operation of law, “a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003). 5On July 31, 2018, the trial court ordered Kohr to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rivest, S.
However, “[t]his Court has previously held that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kent, M.
Because we find this appeal was untimely filed, we need not remand the case pursuant to Subsection 1925(c)(4). -5- J-S79007-17 appellant that, due to his late filing of post-sentence motion, he had to file an appeal within 30 days of sentencing), appeal denied, 960 A.2d 838 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (declining to quash untimely appeal when clerk of courts did not enter an order reflecting post-sentence motion was denied by operation of law); Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 790-791 (Pa. Super. 2001) (declining to quash untimely appeal, filed…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
L. Bussoletti v. Dept. of Human Services
Regardless, even if Petitioner’s appeal from the Secretary’s order denying reconsideration were properly before this Court under a nunc pro tunc theory or otherwise, cf. also Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003), this Court would not be able to review the merits of the Bureau’s final order.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kelsey, T.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Failure to enter order denying the post-sentence motion by operation of law led to a “breakdown in the court system.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (declining to quash appeal where a breakdown in court system has occurred due to clerk of courts’ failure to enter an order denying post-sentence motion by operation of law).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McCoy, F.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003). -3- J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lewis, T.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003). -2- J-S71043-16 If an appellant files a notice of appeal prior to the resolution of post- sentence motions, the judgment of sentence has not become “final” and the purported appeal will be considered interlocutory and unreviewable.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mongeau, P.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (some citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Piccolo, F.
Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133, 136 (Pa.Super. 1995) (“It is well-established that the extension of the filing period or the allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc will be permitted only in extraordinary -6- J-S12026-15 circumstances, namely, fraud or some breakdown in the processes of the court.”); see also Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 , 498- 499 (Pa.Super. 2007);1 Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa.Super. 2003); Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 791 (Pa.Super. 2001); Commonwealth v. Bogden, 528 A.2d 168, 170 (Pa.Super. 1987); Commonwealth v. Hurst, 532…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Petteway
Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa.Super.2003). 6 .
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Mancuso, D.
See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 498-99 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Lester, T.
See Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating “where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances”). -3- J-S39028-25 “[T]he decision to grant a waiver of a jury trial is one committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Merrick, 488 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. Super. 1985) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Devivo-Gane, L.
See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 498-99 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee,
v.
Brian PERRY, Appellant
v.
Brian PERRY, Appellant
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 20, 2003.
Steven G. Laver, Philadelphia, for appellant., Catherine L. Marshall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Com., appellee.
Sole, Klein, Cavanaugh.
Cited by 91 opinions | Published
OPINION BY DEL SOLE, P.J.:
¶ 1 Following a bench trial, Appellant Brian Perry was convicted of robbery, theft, possessing instruments of crime, and simple assault. He was sentenced to 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment and a consecutive term of 5 years’ probation. On appeal, Appellant claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine the victim regarding his juvenile probation status and a pending adult criminal case. We affirm.
[*735] ¶ 2 Before addressing Appellant’s substantive issue, we will address the Commonwealth’s claim that this appeal should be quashed as untimely. On May 25, 2001, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion alleging trial counsel’s ineffectiveness during cross-examination. On June 18, 2001, new counsel was appointed. On July 13, 2001, the hearing on Appellant’s post-sentence motion was continued at the request of counsel who was out of town. On August 23, 2001, Appellant was not brought down for the hearing and it was again continued. On September 26, 2001, the court entered an order granting a 30-day extension of time for the hearing. On October 11, 2001, Appellant was again not brought down for the hearing. Finally, on November 7, 2001, the court held the hearing and denied Appellant’s motion. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on November 19, 2001.
¶ 3 Rule of Criminal Procedure 720 sets forth the procedure to be followed when a post-sentence motion is filed. Under this rule, the trial court must decide the post-sentence motion within 120 days of the filing of the motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). The trial court may grant one 30-day extension for a maximum of 150 days. Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(b). If the trial court fails to decide the motion within this time period, it is deemed denied by operation of law. Id. Where a post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law, the clerk of courts is directed to enter an order on behalf of the court and “forthwith furnish a copy of the order .. .to ... the defendant(s) and defense counsel....” Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(d).
¶4 Ordinarily, the time for filing an appeal begins to run on the date the post-sentence motion is denied, either by the court or by operation of law. Appellant’s post-sentence motion should have been disposed of within the 120-day period set forth in the rule or by September 22, 2001. The trial court’s attempt to extend this period by its order granting a 30-day extension was unavailing as this order was not timely and therefore is a nullity. Commonwealth v. Khalil, 806 A.2d 415 (Pa.Super.2002). Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal should have been filed within 30 days of September 22, 2001. However, our review of the record clearly shows that the clerk of courts did not enter an order reflecting that Appellant’s post-sentence motion was denied by operation of law. This Court has previously held that, where the clerk of courts does not enter an order indicating that the post-sentence motion is denied by operation of law and notify the defendant of same, a breakdown in the court system has occurred and we will not find an appeal untimely under these circumstances. Commonwealth v. Repko, 817 A.2d 549 (Pa.Super.2003); Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 444 Pa.Super. 397, 664 A.2d 133 (1995). Therefore, we decline to quash the appeal and will proceed to Appellant’s substantive issue.
¶ 5 Appellant’s specific claim is that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to bring out on cross-examination, as evidence of bias, that the victim of the robbery was on probation for two juvenile cases and had an open adult criminal matter pending at the time of trial. [1] After[*736] reviewing the record, including the testimony and argument at the post-sentence motion hearing, we conclude that the trial court has properly disposed of this claim. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/13/02, at 5-7. Therefore, we rely on the analysis set forth in that opinion in affirming the judgment of sentence.
¶ 6 Judgment of sentence affirmed.
1
. Appellant has presented a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal from his judgment of sentence. In Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa.2002), our Supreme Court remarked that an appellant "should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review." Id. at 738. Part of the court's rationale for this holding was its concern that an appellate court is sometimes handicapped when it attempts to review an ineffectiveness claim on an undeveloped record. However in this case the trial court held a hearing to review Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim. A[*736] record has been fully developed on this issue; thus we conclude that in this procedural context it is appropriate for us to review Appellant's ineffectiveness claim.