Opinion ID: 1977910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Absence of Continuance

Text: In his final claim, Appellant maintains that he is entitled to a new penalty hearing, because the calendar and trial courts erred in not acting sua sponte to continue trial, where mitigation counsel was appointed only nineteen days prior to the start of the trial. Appellant argues that, given the brief period of time for preparation, and in light of trial counsel's failure to conduct any mitigation investigation, mitigation counsel simply could not have been adequately prepared to proceed at the penalty phase. Appellant claims that, although mitigation counsel did not request a continuance, the court had a duty to delay the trial to permit adequate preparation. Further, Appellant notes that, due to prior obligations, mitigation counsel was unable to attend a substantial part of the trial and observe evidence that he asserts would have contributed to the mitigation defense in the sentencing proceedings. Appellant also contends that it is clear on the record that his mental-health expert was unprepared to testify at the penalty phase, in large part because of the time constraints. Finally, Appellant alludes to several instances of alleged deficient stewardship on the part of mitigation counsel. For its part, the Commonwealth argues that Appellant's claim should be deemed waived because mitigation counsel never requested a continuance or otherwise objected to the trial date. The Commonwealth notes that, despite the late appointment, there is nothing in the record that would have put the trial court on notice that counsel was in need of additional time. In fact, the Commonwealth observes, mitigation counsel indicated in the hearings on Appellant's motion for extraordinary relief that he did not request a continuance because he was adequately prepared. The Commonwealth also observes that Appellant references no authority for the proposition that a trial court is required to continue a case sua sponte in light of a late appointment. To the contrary, the Commonwealth asserts, the courts have not regarded late appointments as per se prejudicial. As a result, the Commonwealth maintains that Appellant's claim must await collateral review, where he may attempt to adduce evidence to demonstrate deficient stewardship. Appellant's tactic to avoid waiver of his direct claim is to argue, in substance, that the time period available to mitigation counsel to prepare was so short that the trial court committed fundamental error and/or that he was effectively denied counsel. This Court, however, has abrogated the practice of reviewing claims of basic or fundamental errors in the absence of a timely objection or exception. See Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 423, 326 A.2d 272, 274 (1974). We have also rejected arguments that appointments shortly before trial rise to the level of a constructive denial of counsel, where meaningful representation is provided. See Commonwealth v. Williams, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 950 A.2d 294, 310 (2008) (citing, inter alia, United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984) (holding that a newly-appointed attorney, who was afforded only twenty-five days to prepare for trial in a case which the government spent four and one-half years investigating and preparing was not per se ineffective)). In light of Clair and Williams, and in the absence of a timely request or objection, it is apparent that the only appropriate claim which may be available to Appellant is of deficient stewardship on the part of his counsel for failing to ask for a continuance and/or for inadequately preparing. Such a challenge is appropriately deferred to post-conviction review under Grant. [5] Additionally, we decline Appellant's invitation to create a series of bright-line rules applicable to this context.