Com. v. O'BIDOS
Decision Date | 23 April 2004 |
Citation | 849 A.2d 243 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Richard O'BIDOS, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Ari S. Moldovsky, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Hugh J. Burns, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Before: JOYCE, OLSZEWSKI, and JOHNSON, JJ.
¶ 1 Richard O'Bidos (appellant/defendant) appeals from his judgment of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County (Lazarus, J.). We affirm.
¶ 2 The trial court adequately discussed the facts of this case.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/03, at 2-4. After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of rape.
¶ 3 The post-trial procedural history of this case is significant to the ultimate disposition of this case. We described the procedural history in our most recent decision.
Commonwealth v. O'Bidos, 974 EDA 2002, unpublished memorandum at 1-3, 828 A.2d 401 (Pa.Super. filed March 31, 2003). Appellant appealed the PCRA court's denial of relief to this Court, and we reinstated appellant's direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. We are now entertaining appellant's reinstated direct appeal.
¶ 4 Appellant raises four issues for our review: (1) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Julann Banscher and appellant as witnesses; (2) whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (3) whether the conviction was against the sufficiency of the evidence; and (4) whether appellant was denied a fundamental right when trial counsel prevented him from testifying at trial.
¶ 5 Appellant first raises claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Commonwealth argues that claims of ineffective assistance are not generally permitted on direct review and that appellant should raise these claims in a subsequent PCRA petition.
¶ 6 The Commonwealth correctly cites to Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002), for the proposition that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be deferred until collateral review.1 The Commonwealth argues that we may not consider appellant's claims of ineffective assistance because this "second" direct appeal, which we granted nunc pro tunc, essentially limits our scope of review to events that occurred "prior to the [original] direct appeal, [and] not in a PCRA proceeding." Commonwealth's brief, at 6. Essentially, the Commonwealth wants us to ignore the PCRA proceedings that occurred in September and November of 2001 where appellant, Julann Banscher, and appellant's trial attorney, Fortunato Perri, testified. We are not persuaded by the Commonwealth's argument.
¶ 7 Initially, we note that our Supreme Court carved out an exception to the general rule in Grant. We are permitted to review claims of ineffectiveness on direct appeal "for which there is an evidentiary record developing the claims and a trial court opinion addressing those claims." Commonwealth v. Belak, 573 Pa. 414, 825 A.2d 1252, 1254 n. 6 (2003) (citing Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (2003)). Such a record exists in the instant case.
¶ 8 Appellant's case is procedurally similar to Commonwealth v. Wright, 832 A.2d 1104 (Pa.Super.2003). In Wright, the defendant filed a timely PCRA petition and alleged trial counsel ineffectiveness for failure to file a direct appeal. The PCRA court granted the defendant an appeal nunc pro tunc. In the defendant's nunc pro tunc appeal to this Court, we reviewed the merits of the ineffectiveness claim. In doing so, we noted that the issue was "fully litigated at the PCRA hearing," and that "an adequate record [exists] upon which we can assess this ineffectiveness claim because there was a full evidentiary hearing on the issue at which trial counsel appeared and testified." Wright, 832 A.2d at 1108-09. In the instant case, the PCRA court held a hearing on the issue of trial counsel ineffectiveness where appellant, Julann Banscher, and appellant's trial attorney, Fortunato Perri, testified. Accordingly, we are able to adequately review appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See also Commonwealth v. Corley, 816 A.2d 1109, 1114 n. 1 (Pa.Super.2003)
(...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosario-Torres v. Lane
...so unreasonable as to vitiate a knowing and intelligent decision by the client not to testify in his own behalf.Commonwealth v. O'Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 250 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation and brackets omitted). "Counsel is not ineffective where counsel's decision to not call the defendant was re......
-
Watson v. Clark
...affidavits from the alleged witnesses indicating availability and willingness to cooperate with the defense.Commonwealth v. O'Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 249 (Pa.Super. 2004) appeal denied, 580 Pa. 696, 860 A.2d 123 (2004) (citations omitted).Instantly, the PCRA court reasoned as follows:[Watson] ......
-
Com. v. Fowler
...time clock will not begin to run until this appeal nunc pro tunc renders his judgment of sentence final." Commonwealth v. O'Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 252 n. 3 (Pa.Super.2004) (citing Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940 (Pa.Super.2003); Commonwealth v. Lewis, 718 A.2d 1262 (Pa.Super.1998)).......
- Medlen v. Fayette