doctrine. Williams noted that, in Cronic itself the United States Supreme Court held that a newly-appointed attorney, who was afforded only twenty-five days to prepare for trial in a case which the government spent four and one-half years investigating and preparing, was not per se ineffective. The fact that counsel was a young real estate attorney trying his first criminal case, the severity of the criminal charges, the complexity of the matter, and the inaccessibility of witnesses to counsel did not, individually or in combination, provide a basis for concluding that counsel could not render adequate stewardship. Id. at 140, 950 A.2d at 813 (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 663-66, 104 S.Ct. at 2049-51); see also Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 450, 60 S.Ct. 321, 324, 84 L.Ed. 377 (1940) (<HOLDING>); Com. ex rel. Crosby v. Rundle, 415 Pa. 81,
holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that a confession of judgment provision is not per se unconstitutional and may be valid where the confession was voluntary knowing and intelligently made holding that the fact that the members of the grievance committee and the disciplinary counsel are appointed by the supreme court is not enough by itself to establish a per se violation of due process holding that capital counsel appointed three days before trial were not per se ineffective where they performed their full duty intelligently and well and presented the accuseds defense at trial holding that one must voluntarily and intelligently waive the right to counsel