Commonwealth v. Kerrigan

J. A32034/06merit. The court of common pleas has subject matter jurisdiction to hearcases arising out of the Crimes Code. See Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828A.2d 1066, 1074 (Pa. 2003) (finding that charges arising out of the CrimesCode are entrusted to the courts of common pleas for proper resolution). Inthis case, we found that sufficient evidence existed for the finding that thecrimes involving penile penetration occurred in Pennsylvania, thus it is clearthat conduct related to the charges occurred in Pennsylvania and jurisdictionis proper there. Consequently, Kerrigan’s second question is of no merit. 12 In support of his third question, Kerrigan argues that his counsel wasineffective for failing to request a specific instruction that the Commonwealthmust prove the element of jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt. Brief forAppellant at 43.Preliminarily, we note that although pursuant toCommonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726, 737-38 (Pa. 2002), an appellantshould generally wait until collateral review to raise claims of ineffectiveassistance of counsel, this case falls within the exception to that rule.Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831, 853-55 (Pa. 2003),Grant does not apply where the trial court held a hearing and addressed theineffectiveness claim in its Opinion, which occurred in this case. 13 “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim has three elements.”Commonwealth v. Battle, 883 A.2d 641, 645 (Pa. Super. 2005).-9-