Sean M. Donahue v. Pennsylvania

In states that allow unitary review, remand for i state court review and/or federal habeas corpus review nunc pro tunc is appropriate when counsel wrongly impose a Hobson’s choice between either forfeiting the right to counsel or accepting the inappropriate imposition of mutual exclusivity of direct appeal and post conviction issues. This case arises from Pennsylvania, which allows unitary review. The precedents established by the second impeachment of President Trump and by Counterman v. Colorado, 143 S. Ct. 2106, 600 U.S. 66, Pp. 4-14, 216 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2023) require that the Petition be granted. 1. Does Pennsylvania’s allowance of unitary review require a grant of relief nunc pro tunc to individuals whose counsel wrongly imposed a Hobson’s choice to either forfeit representation entirely or accept a false mutual exclusivity of direct appeal and post conviction relief issues? Suggested Answer: Yes