approving limiting construction of aggravating factor of torture to require: “[1] the unnecessary and wanton infliction of severe pain, agony, or anguish; and [2] the intent to inflict such pain, agony, or anguish”
How later courts described this case
- approving limiting construction of aggravating factor of torture to require: “[1] the unnecessary and wanton infliction of severe pain, agony, or anguish; and [2] the intent to inflict such pain, agony, or anguish”
- affirming PCRA court's denial of claim that counsel was ineffective in presentation of mitigation evidence where PCRA court was also factfinder at bench trial and evidence of guilt was overwhelming
- noting that prejudice exists where petitioner shows a “reasonable probability that, but for the error of counsel, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”
- stating meritless individual assertions of error lead to rejection of unfounded claim of cumulative effects
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIGRO, Justice,
dissenting.
Based on the narrow set of circumstances presented in this case, I agree with Justice Zappala that the matter should be remanded to the PCRA court for reconsideration of Appellant’s claim that his counsel could have developed a viable diminished capacity defense had counsel provided Dr. Martone with the proper materials to obtain a correct diagnosis in the first instance.