# Commonwealth v. Sam

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 22, 2008 · 597 Pa. 523

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647589

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Thavirak SAM, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 22, 2008
- **Citations:** 597 Pa. 523; 952 A.2d 565; 2008 Pa. LEXIS 1175
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eakin
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, Madame, McCAFFERY, Saylor, Todd
- **Cited by:** 81 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/9647589

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887 (1991) "directs advocates to brief and analyze the following four factors when litigating a claim that state constitutional doctrine should depart from the applicable federal standard: (1) the text of the provision…
- acknowledging that both the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provide the right to be free from “‘unreasonable’ intrusions” such as involuntary medication
- noting that FCDO counsel initiated PCRA proceeding for non-FCDO client by filing PCRA petition without authorization, claiming he was doing so on petitioner’s “behalf’
- noting that Robert Dunham initiated PCRA proceeding by filing PCRA without authorization from petitioner, claiming he was doing so on petitioner's "behalf"

## Opinion text

Justice EAKIN
concurring.
I join the majority opinion. I write separately because I am not convinced the PCRA court properly heard appellee’s PCRA petition. Attorney Dunham filed this PCRA petition, but as the majority notes, appellee did not retain Dunham and no court appointed him as appellee’s counsel. Majority Op., at 568. There is no indication Dunham was considered appellee’s next friend. In fact, the PCRA court denied Attorney Epstein’s request to be appellee’s next friend. Thus, as the majority notes, Dunham appears to have filed the PCRA petition without appellee’s “authorization.” Id., at 588; see also Commonwealth v. White, 557 Pa. 408 , 734 A.2d 374, 376 (1999) (to have standing, next friend must (1) provide adequate explanation, such as lack of access to courts, mental incapacity, or other disability, as to why defendant is incompetent to appear on his own behalf; and (2) establish he has significant relationship to defendant and dedication to defendant’s best interests).
There is a fundamental conceit in ignoring that which a lawyer must do before proceeding on someone’s behalf. Unilateral filings on behalf of clients one has never met, clients who know nothing of the matter, may at times be permissible, but there are preliminary steps required to establish standing *564 which were not met here. Those who disapprove of capital punishment too often ignore these steps, and courts too often fail to hold such counsel to their oath of respecting and obeying the laws and procedures, no matter the zealousness of their disagreement with those laws.
The Commonwealth touches on this point and argues in relation to its motion to compel psychiatric medication, “the [PCRA] court should have compelled the defense — as a prerequisite to litigating without the authorization of the purported client — to prove that defendant cannot, in fact, be restored to competence so that he could make his own decisions.” Commonwealth’s Brief, at 22. I believe this to be correct. However, the upshot ought to be that the PCRA court could not have heard the petition in the first instance; as this is not argued, I join the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647589. Public record. Not legal advice.