Court Opinion

ID: 9764650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:34:30.126618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:59.570112
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
dissenting:
Having concluded that counsel’s actions prejudiced appellant at the time of sentencing, I would remand for resentencing.
I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that an evidentiary hearing is needed to determine whether counsel’s failure to object to the application of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714 and his failure to object to the improper calculation of appellant’s prior record score had reasonable bases designed to effect appellant’s interest. This jurist cannot imagine any reasonable basis for counsel to stand silent and permit a sentencing court to misapply the sentencing statutes and guidelines in a manner clearly prejudicial to his client. Undoubtedly, under the present facts, remand for an evidentiary hearing would simply be a waste of precious judicial resources. Cf., Commonwealth v. Schultz, 335 Pa.Super. 306, 310, 484 A.2d 146, 148 n. 4 (1984) (new trial granted rather than evidentiary hearing, where court finds counsel’s actions unsubstantiated and remand for evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial time).
Consequently, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority since I conclude an evidentiary hearing is *265unnecessary, and this case should be remanded for resentencing.