Com. v. S.W. (concurring)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S74012-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. S.W., Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2922 EDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 9, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002904-2003 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DONOHUE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED DECEMBER 08, 2014 I join the Majority Memorandum. I do so only because I am bound by this Court’s opinion in Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), holding that claims of ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Were I writing on a clean slate, I would adopt the position of P.J.E. Bender in his dissent in Henkel. P.J.E. Bender joins this concurring statement. Judge Donohue joins this concurring statement. * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.