Court Opinion

ID: 9662605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:14:00.943459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:41.014532
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Justice WINTERSHEIMER.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because the trial judge did not have an absolute blanket duty to inquire into the disagreement as to the tactical decision to refuse to allow the accused to testify.
Appellate counsel for Crawley admits that this issue is not properly preserved for appellate review by means of an objection. Trial counsel told the trial judge that there was no need to inquire about whether the defendant wanted to testify. Crawley does not contend that he was not advised that he had a right to testify. If he believes that his lawyer did not properly counsel him, then he should pursue other avenues of relief.
The claim of an involuntary waiver of the right to testify is not clearly supported by the record. Even the authority relied on by the majority does not mandate an automatic inquiry by the trial judge. United States v. Pennycooke, 65 F.3d 9 (3d Cir.1995) states that, “In such a case, it may be advisable that the trial court inquire discreetly into the disagreement and ensure that constitutional rights are not *206suppressed wrongly.” Id. at 13. (Emphasis added).
The mild advisory admonition of Penny-cooke, swpra, clearly shows a deference to the sound discretion of the trial judge. We should not interfere with it in this case.