Court Opinion

ID: 9751826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:08:27.0316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:00.277605
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice CASTILLE,
Concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion, writing separately only to elaborate on three minor points. First, a decision in this case was made unnecessarily difficult by the York County District Attorney’s unexplained failure to brief appellee/cross-appellant Small’s 20-issue cross-appeal. I agree with the Majority’s *477notation that the Commonwealth is strongly encouraged to file responsive pleadings in capital cases. Such a failure is particularly perplexing where, as here, the Commonwealth was the initial appellant and appellee cross-appealed. Going forward, I am not convinced that we should simply accept the Commonwealth’s determination not to participate in capital cases. To facilitate this Court’s disposition of these difficult and laborious cases, perhaps we should first issue a rule to show cause upon the Commonwealth why a capital defendant’s request for relief should not be summarily granted, if the Commonwealth indicates no interest in defending a death penalty judgment.
Second, respecting the Commonwealth’s argument on Small’s conflict of interest claim, I note that, pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court decisional law, a defendant alleging a conflict of interest in a successive representation case may be required to establish Strickland1 prejudice, rather than merely demonstrate that, at the time of his trial, his counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that such conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance. See Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 174-76, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002).2 In the present case the Majority seems to apply this standard in reversing the PCRA court’s grant of a new trial on Small’s conflict of interest claim. See Majority Op. at 451, 980 A.2d at 565-66 (“we conclude Small has not shown Attorney Evanick had a conflict of interest creating prejudice to require vacating the guilty verdict”). I join in that approach. Although Strickland prejudice was not shown in the case sub judice, I agree with the Majority that, as a supervisory *478matter, in future cases counsel would be wise to seek to withdraw from the representation upon learning that a former client will be testifying against a current client.
Finally, I would add the following observation respecting Small’s claim that burglary is not a crime of violence for purposes of the Section 9711(d)(9) aggravator.3 As the Majority notes, this Court has previously recognized that, in Pennsylvania, burglary was always viewed as a crime of violence, and we have consistently construed it as such for purposes of Section 9711(d)(9). Commonwealth v. Rolan, 520 Pa. 1, 549 A.2d 553, 559 (1988) (“[T]he crime of burglary has always been and continues to be viewed as a crime involving the use or threat of violence to the person.”); see also Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 597 Pa. 307, 951 A.2d 307, 321 (2008) (“[BJurglary is always classified as a violent crime in Pennsylvania”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583, 920 A.2d 790, 814 (2007) (same). I would note, however, that the General Assembly is, of course, free to define the crime differently for other purposes, and it did so (after Rolan was decided) in the two-strikes/three-strikes scenario. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(g) (burglary only deemed “crime of violence” for purposes of two and three strikes mandatory punishment when burglary is “of a structure adapted for overnight accommodation in which at the time of the offense any person is present.”). Thus, it is no longer accurate to say, as Rios and Pruitt did, that burglary is always classified as a crime of violence in Pennsylvania, even though it certainly remains a violent crime for purposes of the Section 9711(d)(9) aggravator.

. Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

. While Mickens explicitly left unresolved the "open question” of whether Strickland prejudice must be shown "in cases of successive representation," Mickens, 535 U.S. at 176, 122 S.Ct. 1237, several federal Circuit Courts have noted that Mickens suggests that Strickland prejudice must be shown. See, e.g., Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 873-74 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1287, 127 S.Ct. 1834, 167 L.Ed.2d 333 (2007); Moss v. United States, 323 F.3d 445, 461 (6th Cir.2003); Holleman v. Cotton, 301 F.3d 737, 743 (7th Cir.2002); see also Lordi v. Ishee, 384 F.3d 189, 193 (6th Cir.2004) (holding that Strickland "is the controlling authority for an ineffectiveness claim based on a conflict of interest for a successive representation").

. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(9) (defendant has significant history of felony convictions involving use or threat of violence).