review and, indeed, noted that "although the parties may rely on the old rule of law and raise ineffectiveness claims, neither party will be harmed by the application of the new rule since claims of ineffectiveness can be raised in a collateral proceeding.” Id. at -, 813 A.2d at 738 (emphasis added). In the present case, Appellant raised his ineffective assistance claim in the trial court, which addressed the claim in its opinion. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s concern that appellate courts not be required to decide ineffectiveness claims on an incomplete record is not implicated in the present case. Accordingly, we will address this claim on the merits. 4 . In determining this issue, the trial court applied this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Scher, 111 A.2d 1278 (Pa.Super.1999) (<HOLDING>), rev’d, 569 Pa. 284, 803 A.2d 1204 (2002),
holding the tenday requirement was ministerial and the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant holding that the insurer was not estopped from asserting a policy defense not contained in its reservation of rights letter where the delay was not unreasonable and the insured was not prejudiced holding that appellant was prejudiced by 20year delay in prosecution and that the commonwealths inactivity was grossly negligent holding that commonwealths introduction of statements made by appellant and his black panther membership to rebut appellants character evidence that he was a peaceful and genial man