28, 2007, less than thirty days prior, to the scheduled trial date of August 8, 2007. While the trial court and the Commonwealth argue that this trial date was continued, at least in part, so that Appellant could retain private counsel, there is nothing in the record which substantiates this claim, and we may not rely on items dehors the record, “such as assertions in an appellate brief or a trial court opinion” in resolving this issue. Commonwealth v. Rush, 959 A.2d 945, 949 (Pa.Super.2008). ¶ 14 There is' also no indication in the record that Appellant was ever personally warned that he needed to retain counsel by a specific date or that no further continuances would be granted after the trial was initially continued. See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710, 713 (Pa.Super.2007) (<HOLDING>). Also, the record demonstrates that Appellant
holding that to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must demonstrate that counsel was constitutionally deficient and as a result defendant was prejudiced holding that to demonstrate deficient performance a petitioner must show counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed a defendant by the sixth amendment holding that a defendant who seeks to retain private counsel must receive proper notice of the date by which counsel must enter his appearance holding that notice to counsel may be waived holding that denial of request for continuance to allow retained counsel to prepare for trial did not deny defendant effective assistance of counsel when defendant had waited more than two months to retain an attorney courtappointed counsel appeared competent and defendants motion failed to state when retained counsel would be ready