Opinion ID: 2311086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Reliability of the 1986 Competency Evaluation

Text: Next, Appel argues that he is entitled to relief from his conviction and sentence because he was not afforded a reliable evaluation of his impaired mental health and competency and was thus deprived of his rights under the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Appel relies upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 70, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1090, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), as his sole authority for the proposition that the Constitution requires that an indigent defendant have access to the psychiatric examination and assistance necessary to prepare an effective defense based on his mental condition when the defendant's mental health is at issue. Appel's brief, p. 97. Relying on Ake, Appel alleges that Dr. Schwartz did not conduct an appropriate examination or competently provide a competency evaluation and that he is thus entitled to relief. However, Appel's reliance on Ake is misplaced. In Ake, the United States Supreme Court stated the following: The issue in this case is whether the Constitution requires that an indigent defendant have access to the psychiatric examination and assistance necessary to prepare an effective defense on his mental condition, when his sanity at the time of the offense is seriously in question.