context: P 28 After our Supreme Court's announcement, this Court carved out a very limited exception to the general rule set forth in Grant, to address the specific situation where an appellant will not be able to challenge, in a collateral proceeding, her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because of the short duration of her sentence.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: making exception to Grant to accommodate situation where appellant's sentence of seven days time served was too short to raise ineffectiveness claim in PCRA petition
citation_a.sentence: See also Commonwealth v. Duda, 831 A.2d 728 (2003) (reviewing claim of ineffectiveness of counsel on direct appeal due to shortness of appellant’s sentence); Commonwealth v. Ingold, 823 A.2d 917 (Pa.Super.2003), appeal denied, — Pa. -, 832 A.2d 435 (2003) (making exception to Grant to accommodate situation where appellant’s sentence of seven days time served was too short to raise ineffectiveness claim in PCRA petition).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.parenthetical: declining to apply Salisbury/Ingold exception, where appellant was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment and a concurrent 3 years' probation and still had almost two years to litigate PCRA petition
citation_b.sentence: But see Commonwealth v. Millward, 830 A.2d 991 (2003) (declining to apply Salisbury/Ingold exception, where appellant was sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment and a concurrent 3 years’ probation and still had almost two years to litigate PCRA petition).