[J-56A-2014 and J-56B-2014] [MO: Eakin, J.] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

RAYMOND SOLANO, 

 Appellee 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 686 CAP 

Appeal from the Order entered on 

09/13/2013 in the Court of Common 

Pleas, Criminal Division of Lehigh 

County at No. CP-39-CR-0001114-2002 

SUBMITTED: May 29, 2014 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Appellee 

 v. 

RAYMOND SOLANO, 

 Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 687 CAP 

Appeal from from the Order entered on 

09/13/2013 in the Court of Common 

Pleas, Criminal Division of Lehigh 

County at No. CP-39-CR-0001114-2002 

SUBMITTED: May 29, 2014 

DISSENTING OPINION 

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS DECIDED: December 21, 2015

I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s decision to affirm the PCRA court 

decision awarding Raymond Solano (“Solano”) a new penalty phase based on penalty 

counsel’s (“counsel”) alleged ineffectiveness in presenting mitigating evidence regarding 

his traumatic childhood and its impact on his mental health. 

The Majority acknowledged that counsel’s strategy to humanize Solano by 

portraying him as a likeable young man with a troubled childhood was plausible; 
[J-56A-2014 and J-56B-2014] [MO: Eakin, J.] - 2 

however, the Majority then determined that counsel “despite her good intentions of 

garnering the jury’s compassion for Solano, did not employ the means necessary to 

achieve this end.” Majority Opinion at 67. I respectfully disagree. 

While counsel may not have been experienced in trying capital cases, “[t]his 

Court has consistently stated that inexperience alone is not equivalent to 

ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Blystone, 555 Pa. 565, 725 A.2d 1197, 1205 (1999) 

(citation omitted). 

As the Majority outlined supra, each of Solano’s four penalty-phase witnesses 

testified as to his mother’s neglect, severe drug abuse, and arrest that predicated his 

time in foster care. Moreover, each witness identified Solano as a “funny, kind, 

cooperative” child. These four witnesses conveyed to the jury all of the points in 

support of counsel’s “humanizing” strategy. Specifically, the testimony outlined 

“[Solano’s] traumatic upbringing, his mother’s extensive drug history, his time in foster 

care, as well as the fact that he was generally a likeable, funny child who performed well 

in a structure[d] environment.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 21. This testimony clearly had 

an impact on the jury, as the panel found that the catch-all mitigator had been 

established. 

At the PCRA hearing, Solano presented potential mitigating evidence through 

testimony from several witnesses including additional family members and teachers, as 

outlined by the Majority. While each witness provided an in-depth analysis of both 

Solano’s and his mother’s disturbing childhoods, such evidence was cumulative of the 

evidence already presented by counsel at the penalty phase. 

It is my belief that the PCRA court and the Majority relied too heavily on 

counsel’s testimony wherein she “f[ell] on her proverbial sword and assert[ed] that she 
[J-56A-2014 and J-56B-2014] [MO: Eakin, J.] - 3 

did not have a reasonable basis for not doing what [Solano] now claims she should 

have done.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 23. 

The Majority opinion may open the door for some defense attorneys to purposely 

deliver a sub-par penalty phase performance, claim their own ineffectiveness during 

PCRA proceedings in order for their client to be awarded a new penalty phase trial.1 

 While it is imperative public defenders and criminal defense firms assign capital 

cases to experienced attorneys, in this case the fact that counsel maintains that she 

was inexperienced does not negate the fact that the defendant received a full and fair 

trial. I respectfully dissent and would reverse the order granting Defendant a new 

penalty phase trial. 

 

1

 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17, 176, 18 A.3d 244, 339 (2011) 

(Castille, CJ., concurring) (where Chief Justice Castille admonished the tactics 

employed by the Federal Defenders to “exhaust[ ] the time and resources of the 

Commonwealth and the state judiciary”).