now chooses to raise this issue, rather than in any of his scores of previous filings, particularly his motion to withdraw his nolo contendere pleas, for which he was represented by new counsel. To be eligible for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more errors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §9543 and that the issue has not been previously litigated or waived. For purposes of the PCRA, “an issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state post-conviction proceeding.” 42 Pa.C.S. §9544(b); see also, Commonwealth v. Rounsley, 717 A.2d 537, 539 (Pa. Super. 1998) (<HOLDING>). Waiver is an issue which may be raised sua
holding that ineffectiveness claims raised in a pcra petition are distinct from those claims raised on direct appeal and must be reviewed under the threeprong test of pierce but recognizing that in many instances the claim may ultimately fail on the arguable merit or prejudice prong for the reasons discussed on direct appeal holding that postconviction relief claims which either were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal were properly denied without an evidentiary hearing holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived recognizing that nearly all claims are waived under the pcra since nearly all claims potentially could have been raised on direct appeal