benchmark for judging any claim in Pennsylvania

2020See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984) (“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so - 21 - J-S48013-19 undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial court cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”).

2020They may not merely claim that there was a constitutional violation without tying it to the determination of their culpability. 2 J;/J i;.l'I In regard to Defendant's with ineffectiveness of counsel claims, in Strickland v. <JI Washington the Supreme Court stated, "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness iJ'l must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial !· ..... , process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. 1;.(; Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984).

2020In sum, Appellant’s discussion inappropriately conflates “harmless error” with the more-exacting “actual prejudice” standard that is applicable under the PCRA.9/10 Our Supreme Court clearly delineated this distinction in Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (“Spotz II”): [T]he test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Commonwealth.

2019DISCUSSION "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, 4.66 U,S, 668, 686 (1984) To obtain relief on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a Appellant must establish: (1) 11 that there is merit to the underlying claim; (2) that counsel had no reasonable basis for his or her course of conduct; and (3) that there is a reasonable prcbability that, but for the act or omission challenged

2017A hearsay exception cannot serve merely “as a conduit to support the admission of fact-bound evidence to be used for a substantive purpose.” Commonwealth v. Moore, 594 Pa. 619, 637 , 937 A.2d 1062, 1073 (2007), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 969 , 129 S.Ct. 452 , 172 L.Ed.2d 326 (2008). -8- J-S19008-17 “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on having produced a just result.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674

2017A hearsay exception cannot serve merely “as a conduit to support the admission of fact-bound evidence to be used for a substantive purpose.” Commonwealth v. Moore, 594 Pa. 619, 637 , 937 A.2d 1062, 1073 (2007), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 969 , 129 S.Ct. 452 , 172 L.Ed.2d 326 (2008). -8- J-S19008-17 “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on having produced a just result.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674

2015Because this advice was reasonable, Defendant "must bear the burden of his decision not to testify and cannot shift the blame to his attorney." Corrunonwealth v. Harper, 614 A.2d 1180, 1188 (Pa.Super. [FN-3-14] 23 7J- Circulated 03/18/2015 11:22 AM 1992) . consequently, we find this final claim to also be without merit. is CONCLUSION "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, 4 66 U.S. 668