Obviously, in 1999 when Elliott filed his amended petition, Brooks had not yet been decided. However, in 2008, five years post-Broofcs, the PCRA court granted Elliott permission to again amend his PCRA petition, and in 2009 Elliott did so. El we conclude that our holding in Brooks constituted a departure from prior law to the extent it held that the failure to meet personally with a capital defendant prior to trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, the PCRA court erred by granting Elliott relief based exclusively on Brooks, when Brooks was not available to appellate counsel to enable him to challenge on direct appeal trial counsel’s failure to conduct a pretrial in-person consultation with Elliott. See Commonwealth v. Carson, 590 Pa. 501, 913 A.2d 220, 260 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Having rejected the PCRA court’s conclusion
holding that trial counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to anticipate changes in law holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failure to present cumulative evidence holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to advance novel and unaccepted theories