Court Opinion

ID: 9767407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:18:56.182975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:31.036935
License: Public Domain

HUDOCK, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the opinion of the majority that counsel was ineffective, but for reasons other than those relied upon by the majority. I believe counsel’s ineffectiveness “so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place”. . 42 Pa.C.S.A. section 9543(a)(2)®. I further believe such a finding is a prerequisite to PCRA relief.
The language of section 9543(a)(2)® cannot be ignored; the legislature included it in the PCRA for some purpose. That purpose is well expressed by Justice Montemuro, joined by Justices Zappala and Castille, in Commonwealth v. Buehl, 540 Pa. 493, 505 658 A.2d 771, 777 (1995), where he pointed out *205that the language means that the PCRA “renders more stringent the prejudice requirement which must be satisfied before relief can be granted”.