The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief for a defendant who made allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The case was a pre-Birchfield blood-draw DUI. The defendant claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to object when a police officer opined why there were exigent circumstances for a warrant. The Superior Court noted that the officer was speaking hypothetically, and counsel argued that there was no exigent circumstance. Because the lack of exigent circumstances was unsuccessfully raised before the suppression court and on direct appeal, it was previously litigated and could not form the basis for post-conviction relief. The Court also found another allegation of ineffective assistance fatally underdeveloped and waived, and a third claim meritless.