Commonwealth v. Grosella

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the reinstatement of direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc was not the proper remedy, where the petitioner was not entirely denied his right to a direct appeal and only some of the issues the petitioner wished to pursue were waived
• determining that PCRA court erred in reinstating appellant’s direct appeal rights without applying three-pronged ineffectiveness test where counsel filed a direct appeal, but did not pursue all issues appellant wished to raise
• holding counsel’s failure to raise all requested appeal issues not per se ineffectiveness
• collecting cases distinguishing between those involving failures that completely foreclosed appellate review with those that merely narrowed its ambit
• distinguishing between cases where counsel’s failure extinguished defendant’s right to direct appeal and cases where counsel might have waived or abandoned some but not all issues on direct appeal
• addressing as preliminary matter whether appellant’s purported nunc pro tunc direct appeal was properly before Court where he previously filed direct appeal in which we affirmed judgment of sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).