Opinion ID: 2422962
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Pa.R.Crim.P. 801

Text: The Commonwealth asserts that the PCRA court erroneously applied present-day attorney competency standards, namely, Rule 801 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, to determine the competency of counsel at Lesko's second sentencing in 1995. Rule 801, which became effective in 2004, sets forth the qualifications for defense counsel in capital cases. In its opinion and order, the PCRA court set forth the language of Rule 801, and opined that the new standards enumerated the elements for adequate capital case representation. Nevertheless, the PCRA court specifically noted that this rule was not effective or binding upon Mr. Marsh during the time he represented [Lesko], and stated that it was merely recognizing the heightened standard of representation that our highest court now demands of attorneys who are involved in capital cases.... PCRA Court Opinion, 8/7/06, at 8-9. From the PCRA court's statement, the Commonwealth argues that [i]t is clear that the lower court improperly framed its analysis of the issues relating to ineffectiveness. Brief of Appellant Commonwealth at 19. The Commonwealth overlooks, however, that the PCRA court specifically acknowledged that it would not apply the Rule 801 standards to Lesko's trial counsel. Furthermore, the Commonwealth fails to identify any particular instance where the PCRA court analyzed a specific ineffectiveness claim under improper standards. Accordingly, the Commonwealth's generalized Rule 801 complaint is without merit.