# Commonwealth v. Hanible

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 19, 2011 · 612 Pa. 183

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965015

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Ronald HANIBLE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 19, 2011
- **Citations:** 612 Pa. 183; 30 A.3d 426; 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2520
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Saylor
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd
- **Cited by:** 361 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965015

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption that counsel performed effectively in challenging the conviction on direct appeal where the petitioner (1) offered no persuasive authority to establish that counsel acted unreasonably in emphasizing the unreliabili…
- concluding that a witness’s written statement given to police identifying the appellant as the shooter, which was confirmed by both the witness and the detective taking the statement to have been signed by the witness, but which was repudiated by the witness at trial, was admi…
- concluding that "[a]ppellant has failed to satisfy [his] burden as his reliance on speculation, and failure to assert facts, which, if believed, would support his claim cannot be equated with a genuine issue concerning a material fact that warrants an evidentiary hearing"
- holding that conjecture that an opportunity to review "homicide file" might yield exculpatory evidence is inadequate to demonstrate good cause for discovery
- holding that challenges to sufficiency and weight of the evidence were distinct from due process claim, even though all claims were “premised upon a purported lack of reliability of the evidence supporting the first degree murder conviction”

## Opinion text

Justice SAYLOR,
dissenting.
According to the majority opinion, it is undisputed that trial counsel performed incompetently relative to one of the two phases of Appellant’s capital trial (ie., penalty). See Majority Opinion, op. at 438. As to the other phase, Appellant reports that counsel has been uncooperative in the post-conviction investigation. Nevertheless, the case is being disposed of without a factual hearing.
In approving such treatment, the majority applies the review standard subsuming consideration of whether the disposition is supported by the record. See Majority Opinion, op. at 438. It bears repeating, however, that there simply is no evidentia-ry record concerning Appellant’s extra-record claims, such as those of deficient attorney stewardship, since he was denied a post-conviction hearing.
My thoughts concerning the appropriate treatment and frame of reference for appellate review of these dismissals have been set out at length elsewhere. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Smith, — Pa. -, -, 17 A.3d 873, 915-17 (2011) (Saylor, J., dissenting). I respectfully dissent here, as well, in favor of an evidentiary hearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4965015. Public record. Not legal advice.