Court Opinion

ID: 9752434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:07:51.569341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:16.145277
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
Appellant is not, as the majority would believe, like any client who “lies” to counsel. Rather, because of a mental disability, appellant believes his “lies.” Nonetheless, the *35majority concludes that the trial court properly denied appellant’s request for further psychiatric evaluation pursuant to the Mental Health Procedures Act, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 817, §§ 101 et seq., 50 P.S. §§ 7101 et seq. (Supp.1979). I must dissent. Even the Commonwealth’s own psychiatrist recognizes that appellant’s disability makes him unable to assist counsel in the preparation of a defense. Consistent with section 402(a) of the Mental Health Procedures Act, appellant’s request for further evaluation should have been granted, judgment of sentence should be vacated, and the case should be remanded for proceedings consistent with section 403 of the Act.
NIX, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.