This is true even when the record could support a contrary holding." (citations omitted). Consequently, this Court will not disturb its findings if they are supported in the PCHA record. 129, 145, 371 A.2d 468, 476 (1977), our Supreme Court stated that "he findings of the PCHA court, which hears the evidence and passes on the credibility of the witnesses, should be given great deference. The PCHA court has discretion to disbelieve testimony thus, self-serving or uncorroborated statements on petitioner's behalf do not shift and do not necessarily sustain petitioner's burden of proof, even when the Commonwealth presents no rebuttal evidence. In particular, the burden of establishing ineffectiveness of trial counsel is on appellant. Before reviewing appellant's specific contentions, we note initially that, in general, a PCHA petitioner has the burden of establishing his grounds for post-conviction relief.Thus all of appellant's remaining contentions concerning ineffectiveness of trial counsel are properly before us. In addition, we note that in 1973, when appellant could appeal his convictions directly, ineffectiveness of counsel was properly raised in collateral hearings. Appellant did not waive his remaining claims of ineffective trial counsel by his failure to appeal those claims directly because it would be unrealistic to expect trial counsel to raise his own ineffectiveness on appeal and the PCHA hearing was appellant's first opportunity to raise those issues with new counsel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |