context of an ineffectiveness claim in Pennsylvania

2023See Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 801 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“[A] claim regarding the discretionary aspects of [the defendant’s] sentence, raised in the context of an ineffectiveness claim, would be cognizable under the PCRA.”) (footnote omitted). - 14 - J-S30026-22 Notably, Appellant has not raised any argument alleging Plea Counsel’s failure to preserve any potential challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

2021Commonwealth v. Whitmore, 860 A.2d 1032, 1036 (Pa. Super. 2004), reversed in part on other grounds, 912 A.2d 827 (Pa. 2006) (stating that “a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to perfect a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing is cognizable under the PCRA.” (citations omitted)); Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 801 (Pa. Super. 2003) (explaining that “a claim regarding the discretionary aspects of [the defendant’s] sentence, raised in - 14 - J-S32045-21 the context of an ineffectiveness claim, would be cognizable under the PCRA[.]”).

2026We have “held that claims implicating the discretionary aspects of sentencing raised in the context of an ineffectiveness claim are cognizable under the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436, 455 (Pa.Super. 2018) (cleaned up).

2025Although the underlying issue involves the discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence, “claims implicating the discretionary aspects of sentencing raised in the context of an ineffectiveness claim are cognizable under the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436, 455 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations omitted).

2023In the context of an ineffectiveness claim, counsel’s failure to request a cautionary instruction regarding evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts does not constitute per se ineffectiveness; “[r]ather, in order to obtain relief under such a claim, a defendant must still satisfy each of the three prongs of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Buehl, 540 Pa. 493 , 658 A.2d 771, 778 (1995) (plurality).

2023In the context of an ineffectiveness claim, counsel’s failure to request a cautionary instruction regarding evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts does not constitute per se ineffectiveness; “[r]ather, in order to obtain relief under such a claim, a defendant must still satisfy each of the three prongs of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Buehl, 540 Pa. 493 , 658 A.2d 771, 778 (1995) (plurality).

2025“In the context of an ineffectiveness claim, counsel’s failure to request a cautionary instruction regarding evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts - 17 - J-A11023-25 does not constitute per se ineffectiveness; rather, in order to obtain relief under such a claim, a defendant must still satisfy each of the three prongs of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Weiss, 622 Pa. 663, 716 , 81 A.3d 767, 798 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Yale, 665 Pa. 635 , 249 A.3d 1001 (2021).

2025“In the context of an ineffectiveness claim, counsel’s failure to request a cautionary instruction regarding evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts - 17 - J-A11023-25 does not constitute per se ineffectiveness; rather, in order to obtain relief under such a claim, a defendant must still satisfy each of the three prongs of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Weiss, 622 Pa. 663, 716 , 81 A.3d 767, 798 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Yale, 665 Pa. 635 , 249 A.3d 1001 (2021).

2026“Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post- conviction litigant is entitled to at least one meaningful opportunity to have . . . issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 945 (Pa. Super. 2003) (emphasis in original) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2021The PCRA court complied with its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) obligations by directing us to the February 10, 2020 opinion that accompanied its dismissal order. -2- J-S05012-21 “Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post- conviction litigant is entitled to at least one meaningful opportunity to have issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 945 (Pa.Super. 2003) (cleaned up).

2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Reaves, 592 Pa. 134 , 923 A.2d 1119, 1127 (2007) (noting that, in the context of an ineffectiveness claim, the proper prejudice inquiry is whether “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”).

2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Reaves, 592 Pa. 134 , 923 A.2d 1119, 1127 (2007) (noting that, in the context of an ineffectiveness claim, the proper prejudice inquiry is whether “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”).

2021Commonwealth v. Whitmore, 860 A.2d 1032, 1036 (Pa. Super. 2004), reversed in part on other grounds, 912 A.2d 827 (Pa. 2006) (stating that “a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to perfect a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing is cognizable under the PCRA.” (citations omitted)); Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 801 (Pa. Super. 2003) (explaining that “a claim regarding the discretionary aspects of [the defendant’s] sentence, raised in - 14 - J-S32045-21 the context of an ineffectiveness claim, would be cognizable under the PCRA[.]”).

2019Commonwealth v. Whitmore, 860 A.2d 1032, 1036 (Pa.Super. 2004), reversed in part on other grounds, 912 A.2d 827 (Pa. 2006) (“[A] claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to perfect a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing is cognizable under the PCRA.” (citations omitted)); Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 801 (Pa.Super. 2003) (“[A] claim regarding the discretionary aspects of [the defendant's] sentence, raised in the context of an ineffectiveness claim, would be cognizable under the PCRA”) (discussing Commonwealth ex rel.

2003Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post-conviction litigant is entitled to “at least one meaningful opportunity to have.. .issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Kaufmann, [ 405 Pa.Super. 335 , 592 A.2d 691, 695 (Pa.Super.1991) (quoting Commonwealth v. Alexander, 495 Pa. 26, 35 , 432 A.2d 182, 186 (1981)) ].

2003Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post-conviction litigant is entitled to “at least one meaningful opportunity to have.. .issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Kaufmann, [ 405 Pa.Super. 335 , 592 A.2d 691, 695 (Pa.Super.1991) (quoting Commonwealth v. Alexander, 495 Pa. 26, 35 , 432 A.2d 182, 186 (1981)) ].

2019Appellant contends that the trial court's admission of the records "ignores" this Court's holding in Commonwealth v. Carson , 590 Pa. 501 , 913 A.2d 220 , 264 (2006), wherein we determined, in the context of an ineffectiveness claim, that the defendant was not entitled to relief based on the trial court's exclusion of the defendant's records from a school for delinquent youth, which the defendant sought to introduce as mitigation evidence, because, inter alia , the defendant never challenged the trial court's ruling that the school records were inadmissible because they had not been authentica

2019Appellant contends that the trial court's admission of the records "ignores" this Court's holding in Commonwealth v. Carson , 590 Pa. 501 , 913 A.2d 220 , 264 (2006), wherein we determined, in the context of an ineffectiveness claim, that the defendant was not entitled to relief based on the trial court's exclusion of the defendant's records from a school for delinquent youth, which the defendant sought to introduce as mitigation evidence, because, inter alia , the defendant never challenged the trial court's ruling that the school records were inadmissible because they had not been authentica

2003Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post-conviction litigant is entitled to “at least one meaningful opportunity to have.. .issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Kaufmann, [ 405 Pa.Super. 335 , 592 A.2d 691, 695 (Pa.Super.1991) (quoting Commonwealth v. Alexander, 495 Pa. 26, 35 , 432 A.2d 182, 186 (1981)) ].

2003Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post-conviction litigant is entitled to “at least one meaningful opportunity to have.. .issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Kaufmann, [ 405 Pa.Super. 335 , 592 A.2d 691, 695 (Pa.Super.1991) (quoting Commonwealth v. Alexander, 495 Pa. 26, 35 , 432 A.2d 182, 186 (1981)) ].

2024See Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“[I]f the PCRA court can ____________________________________________ 6 Here, there is no dispute that Appellant preserved his sentencing claim before the trial court, but that trial counsel abandoned the issue on Appellant’s direct appeal.

2024See PCRA Ct. Op., 7/13/23, at 8-11. - 11 - J-S15022-24 appeal the denial of the [post-sentence] motion to reconsider the sentence.” Id. at 24. “[C]laims implicating the discretionary aspects of sentencing raised in the context of an ineffectiveness claim are cognizable under the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436, 455 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations omitted).5 Regarding the arguable merit prong, this Court has explained that “if the PCRA court can determine from the record that the sentence was not excessive, or that adequate reasons were placed on the record for exceeding the sentencing

2018To prove prejudice in the context of an ineffectiveness claim, "[a]n appellant must show that the error was 'so serious as to deprive [him or her] of a fair trial, a trial whose result was reliable.'" Commonwealth v. Morocco, 375 Pa.Super. 367, 371 , 544 A.2d 965, 967 (1988) (quotingStricklandv.

2018To prove prejudice in the context of an ineffectiveness claim, "[a]n appellant must show that the error was 'so serious as to deprive [him or her] of a fair trial, a trial whose result was reliable.'" Commonwealth v. Morocco, 375 Pa.Super. 367, 371 , 544 A.2d 965, 967 (1988) (quotingStricklandv.

2016Thus, the instant PCRA petition is timely. 4 While this Court has determined a claim challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not cognizable under the PCRA, Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa.Super. 2007), we have held that a claim regarding the discretionary aspects of a sentence raised in the context of an ineffectiveness claim is cognizable under the PCRA.

2016Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 801 (Pa.Super. 2003) (contrasting claim challenging discretionary aspects of a sentence directly, which is not cognizable), Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa.Super. 2007).

2015Cf. Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 571 Pa. 45, 55 , 811 A.2d 556, 562 (2002) (in the context of an ineffectiveness claim raised on direct review, finding no prejudice where counsel failed to object to isolated and passing testimony about other bad acts).

2015Cf. Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 571 Pa. 45, 55 , 811 A.2d 556, 562 (2002) (in the context of an ineffectiveness claim raised on direct review, finding no prejudice where counsel failed to object to isolated and passing testimony about other bad acts).

2012"Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post-conviction litigant is entitled to at least one meaningful opportunity to have ... issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim." Commonwealth v. Hampton, 718 A.2d 1250, 1252 (Pa.Super.1998) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis in original).

2012“Pennsylvania courts have recognized expressly that every post-conviction litigant is entitled to at least one meaningful opportunity to have ... issues reviewed, at least in the context of an ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Hampton, 718 A.2d 1250, 1252 (Pa.Super.1998) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis in original).

2025Id. - 12 - J-S14021-25 A claim implicating the discretionary aspects of sentencing raised in the context of an ineffectiveness claim is cognizable under the PCRA.

2025“To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 624 Pa. 4, 33 , 84 A.3d 294, 312 (2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2003This Court has admonished, accordingly, that “[t]he point in time at which a trial court may determine that a PCRA petitioner’s claims are frivolous or meritless is after the petitioner has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to present those claims.” [Commonwealth v. Peterson, 453 Pa.Super. 271 , 683 A.2d 908, 909 (Pa.Super.1996) ].

2003This Court has admonished, accordingly, that “[t]he point in time at which a trial court may determine that a PCRA petitioner’s claims are frivolous or meritless is after the petitioner has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to present those claims.” [Commonwealth v. Peterson, 453 Pa.Super. 271 , 683 A.2d 908, 909 (Pa.Super.1996) ].

2026“This right -6- J-S17026-26 to representation exists throughout the post-conviction proceedings, including any appeal from disposition of the petition for post-conviction relief.” Commonwealth v. White, 871 A.2d 1291, 1293-94 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(F)(2); Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C).

2024Sentencing “is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Barnes, 167 A.3d 110 , 122 n.9 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 847 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating an abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but rather where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of “partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.” (citation om

2023See Mallory, supra. Here, King asserts that there is nothing in the record showing that Attorney Fish discussed the waiver with King.

2023Mallory, supra at 704 .