Title: Commonwealth v. Beasley, L., Aplt. (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 328 CAP
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: March 18, 2009

[J-52-2007] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. LESLIE CHARLES X. BEASLEY, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. 328 CAP Appeal from the Order entered on 12/12/00 at No. 969 November Term 1980 denying amended PCRA petition in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division of Philadelphia County SUBMITTED: April 9, 2007 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: March 18, 2009 Assuming there is no waiver, see Majority Slip Op., at 26 n.14, I reiterate my position that counsel’s performance regarding mitigating evidence should be critiqued according to the law existing at the time of trial, not according to later-announced standards. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 952 A.2d 640, 671 (Pa. 2008) (Eakin, J., concurring and dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gibson, 951 A.2d 1110, 1155 (Pa. 2008) (Eakin, J., concurring and dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gorby, 909 A.2d 775, 795-96 (Pa. 2006) (Castille, J., dissenting). “Any other standard would require counsel to predict changes in the law and turn representation into prognostication.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 950 A.2d 294, 324 (Eakin, J., concurring). In all other respects, I join the majority’s opinion.