Opinion ID: 1547368
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to effective assistance of PCRA counsel

Text: Appellant argues that due to his mental illness, Haag cannot effectively communicate and work with PCRA counsel during the collateral review process. Consequently, Appellant claims that PCRA counsel cannot investigate claims outside of the record due to Haag's incompetence, the death of previous counsel, and destruction of Haag's file. Therefore, Appellant asserts that forcing PCRA counsel to proceed, despite his inability to investigate all possible claims for PCRA relief, denies Haag effective assistance of counsel. While a PCRA petitioner does not have a Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel during collateral review, this Commonwealth, by way of procedural rule, provides for the appointment of counsel during a prisoner's first petition for post conviction relief. Pa.R.Crim.P. 904; Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987); Commonwealth v. Kenney, 557 Pa. 195, 732 A.2d 1161, 1165 (1999). Pursuant to our procedural rules, not only does a PCRA petitioner have the right to counsel, but also he or she has the right to effective assistance of counsel. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d at 699-700. The guidance and representation of an attorney during collateral review should assure that meritorious legal issues are recognized and addressed, and that meritless claims are foregone. Commonwealth v. Albert, 522 Pa. 331, 561 A.2d 736, 738-39 (1989). Requiring counsel to pursue PCRA relief on Haag's behalf with the assistance of a next friend is sufficient to protect any right to counsel. There is no indication that PCRA counsel will not raise all meritorious claims capable of investigation. The mere possibility that an undiscoverable basis for relief exists does not render counsel ineffective. Consequently, we hold that the order of the PCRA court does not violate Haag's right to effective assistance of counsel.