Court Opinion

ID: 9713053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:05:51.723775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:16.037871
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. It is apparent on the record before us that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecu*373tor’s expressions of personal belief in appellant’s guilt and inflammatory statements unrelated to the issue of appellant’s guilt or innocence. These statements clearly were so prejudicial as to have deprived appellant of a fair trial. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Evans, 479 Pa. 100, 387 A.2d 854 (1978), and cases cited therein. I can conceive of no reasonable basis designed to effectuate appellant’s interests, Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 604, 235 A.2d 349, 352 (1967), justifying counsel’s failure to object to these improper statements. Accordingly, there is no need to remand this case for an inquiry into counsel’s reasons for not objecting. Commonwealth v. Bullock, 266 Pa.Super. 526, 405 A.2d 943 (1979). Moreover, because reversible error is apparent on the record before us, we may properly entertain appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance, notwithstanding that appellant is here represented by counsel whose effectiveness at trial is in question. Commonwealth v. Fox, 476 Pa. 475, 479, 383 A.2d 199, 201 (1978). I would reverse the judgments of sentence and grant appellant a new trial because of counsel’s ineffectiveness. Accordingly, I dissent.