The lower court dismissed client’s post-conviction claim seeking a new trial on the basis that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance for failing to argue an obvious defense to the fleeing-and-eluding law. The crux of the claim centered on how the word “markings” was to be interpreted in order for the defense to apply. Did “markings” include a “unmarked” police vehicle’s “lights and siren”? In a published opinion, the Superior Court said that it did not, answering an issue of first impression, and vacating the lower court’s order. In a concurring/dissenting opinion, Judge Bowes opined the client should’ve been entitled to a new trial immediately. The case is Commonwealth v. Durrett King, 2018 PA Super 239.