record to support claim in Pennsylvania

1997See: Commonwealth v. Spotts, 341 Pa.Super. 31, 33 , 491 A2d 132,134 (1985).

1997See: Commonwealth v. Spotts, 341 Pa.Super. 31, 33 , 491 A2d 132,134 (1985).

1995In Commonwealth v. Petras, 368 Pa.Super. 372 , 534 A.2d 483 (1987), this court stated: When an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the court below to permit the defendant to develop evidence on the record to support the claim, and to provide the Commonwealth an opportunity to rebut the claim, this Court will remand for such a hearing.

1995In Commonwealth v. Petras, 368 Pa.Super. 372 , 534 A.2d 483 (1987), this court stated: When an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the court below to permit the defendant to develop evidence on the record to support the claim, and to provide the Commonwealth an opportunity to rebut the claim, this Court will remand for such a hearing.

1994The Supreme Court has recognized “that, for strategical reasons, a defendant and his or her counsel may determine that defendant’s right to remain silent under Article I, Section 9, is best served by requesting that a ‘no-adverse-inference’ charge not be given to the jury, in order to avoid drawing attention to defendant’s failure to testify.” Commonwealth v. Lewis, supra at 455 n. 14, 598 A.2d at 983 n. 14. 4 “ ‘When an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the [trial court] to permit the defendant to develop evidence o

1994The Supreme Court has recognized “that, for strategical reasons, a defendant and his or her counsel may determine that defendant’s right to remain silent under Article I, Section 9, is best served by requesting that a ‘no-adverse-inference’ charge not be given to the jury, in order to avoid drawing attention to defendant’s failure to testify.” Commonwealth v. Lewis, supra at 455 n. 14, 598 A.2d at 983 n. 14. 4 “ ‘When an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the [trial court] to permit the defendant to develop evidence o

2021While Copeland does not explicitly discuss the materiality standard under Pa.R.Crim.P. 908, it relied upon precedent providing that “[w]hen an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made,” this Court “shall” remand “to permit the defendant to develop evidence on the record to support the claim, and to provide the Commonwealth an opportunity to rebut the claim[.]” Copeland, supra at 61 .

2021Applying this reasoning to the case at -7- J-S55031-20 bar, Attorney Crawford’s testimony and the parties’ applications clearly raised a material issue of fact, i.e., whether Appellant was misinformed regarding plea offers from the Commonwealth.3 The trial court erred by denying the parties’ requests for a follow-up evidentiary hearing.4 Accord Copeland, supra at 60-61 ; see also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hart, 199 A.3d 475, 482 (Pa.Super. 2018) (holding that where there are “disputed factual issues,” the PCRA court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing “as a matter of law”) (citing Pa.R.Cr

2018See Commonwealth v. Walls, 993 A.2d 289 , 296–97 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“[W]hen an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the [PCRA court] to permit the defendant to develop evidence on the record to support the claim, and to provide the Commonwealth an opportunity to rebut the claim, this Court will remand for such a hearing.”). -2-

2017See Commonwealth v. Walls, 993 A.2d 289 , 296–97 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“[W]hen an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the [PCRA court] to permit the defendant to develop evidence on the record to support the claim, and to provide the Commonwealth an opportunity to rebut the claim, this Court will remand for such a hearing.”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2007); Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 333 (Pa. Super. 2010) (concluding that an issue was waived where the appellant failed to identify where in the record the issue was preserved, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(e)).

2025See Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2021DeLuca Co. v. Toll Naval Associates, 56 A.3d 402, 413 (Pa. Super. 2012) (claim waived for purposes of appeal when the appellant failed to present any citation to the record to support its claim).

2020DeLuca Co. v. Toll Naval Associates, 56 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellant waived claim where appellant did not present any citation to the record to support the claim nor show how appellee’s evidence was deficient).

2017Franklin, 990 A.2d at 797 (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that “[a] defendant raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is required to show actual prejudice; that is, that counsel’s ineffectiveness was of such a magnitude that it could have reasonably had an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceedings.” (citations and some brackets omitted)). [W]hen an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the [PCRA] court to permit the defendant to d

2014He fails to provide any support for his bald claim that the trial court’s actions in some way deprived Fuentes of a fair trial. “[I]t is axiomatic that [trial] counsel will not be considered ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims.” Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1024 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2015As this Court has held, “[w]hen an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the [PCRA court] to permit the defendant to develop evidence on the record to support the claim, and to provide the Commonwealth an opportunity to rebut the claim, this Court will remand for such a hearing.” Commonwealth v. Savage, 695 A.2d 820, 825 (Pa. Super. 1997).

2015Furthermore, “[w]hen an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the [PCRA court] to permit the defendant to develop evidence on the record to support the claim, and to provide the Commonwealth an -8- J-S04042-15 opportunity to rebut the claim, this Court will remand for such a hearing.” Commonwealth v. Savage, 695 A.2d 820, 825 (Pa. Super. 1997).

2026See Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291, 341 (Pa. 2011) (finding that, where an appellant fails, inter alia, to develop an argument with appropriate - 10 - J-S42005-25 reference to relevant evidence in the record to support the claim, the claim is “utterly undeveloped” and waived for purpose of direct appeal).

2026See id.

2026See Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2007); Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 333 (Pa. Super. 2010) (concluding that an issue was waived where the appellant failed to identify where in the record the issue was preserved, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(e)).

2024See Commonwealth v. Miller, 634 A.2d 614, 619-20 (Pa. Super. 1993) (“When an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the court below to permit the defendant to develop evidence on the record to support the claim, and to provide the Commonwealth an opportunity to rebut the claim, this Court will remand for such a hearing”).

2024Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has failed to properly develop this claim for review and is not entitled to relief on this claim. 10 See Fears, 86 A.3d at 804 ; see also Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043-44 ; Samuel, 102 A.3d at 1005 .

2021Applying this reasoning to the case at -7- J-S55031-20 bar, Attorney Crawford’s testimony and the parties’ applications clearly raised a material issue of fact, i.e., whether Appellant was misinformed regarding plea offers from the Commonwealth.3 The trial court erred by denying the parties’ requests for a follow-up evidentiary hearing.4 Accord Copeland, supra at 60-61 ; see also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hart, 199 A.3d 475, 482 (Pa.Super. 2018) (holding that where there are “disputed factual issues,” the PCRA court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing “as a matter of law”) (citing Pa.R.Cr

2021Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 563 A.2d 1273, 1275 (Pa. Super.

2020Thus, by failing to cite to the record anywhere in her brief, Mother has failed to preserve any of the issues raised therein. * * * In general, “[a] decision to terminate parental rights [is] never to be made lightly or without a sense of compassion for the parent,” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 827 (Pa. 2012), and we are particularly loath to quash an appeal from a matter as consequential and life-altering as a termination of parental rights on technical, procedural grounds.

2019See id. at 523 .

2017Franklin, 990 A.2d at 797 (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that “[a] defendant raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is required to show actual prejudice; that is, that counsel’s ineffectiveness was of such a magnitude that it could have reasonably had an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceedings.” (citations and some brackets omitted)). [W]hen an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made, and there has been no evidentiary hearing in the [PCRA] court to permit the defendant to d

2017See Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 509 (Pa. 2015) (an appellant waives an issue for failing to develop it in any meaningful way and does not refer to anything in the record to support his claim).