# Commonwealth v. Blakeney

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 29, 2014 · 631 Pa. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969502

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Herbert BLAKENEY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 29, 2014
- **Citations:** 631 Pa. 1; 108 A.3d 739; 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3517
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Saylor
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, Saylor, Stevens, Todd
- **Cited by:** 395 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/4969502

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[a]lthough the courts may liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon a litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become a litigant’s counsel or find more in a written pro se submission than is fairly c…
- holding that “[t]o establish Strickland/Pierce prejudice in the appellate representation context, the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the direct appeal proceeding would have been different but for counsel’s deficient performance”
- recognizing that a PCRA appellant who represented himself at trial may be “restricted by trial level defaults chargeable to . . . himself[,]” and find layered claims of counsel ineffectiveness unavailable

## Opinion text

SAYLOR, J.,
dissenting.
As noted by Mr. Chief Justice Castille, Appellant submitted a report of a forensic *779 psychiatrist to the PCRA court, containing the opinion that Appellant lacked competency at the time of his trial, including the ability to knowingly and intelligently waive his rights and represent himself. Were this opinion to be believed, Appellant would be entitled to relief in the form of a new trial.
Given, then, the material factual dispute concerning Appellant’s competency, the applicable rules of criminal procedure required an evidentiary hearing for such controversy to be resolved on a developed record. See Pa.Crim.P. 909(B). Since no hearing was afforded, I would remand for the appropriate procedure to be implemented.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969502. Public record. Not legal advice.