explaining that “a defense of diminished capacity grounded in voluntary intoxication is a very limited defense” which only acts to mitigate first-degree murder to third- - 10 - J-S10014-26 degree murder
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “a defense of diminished capacity grounded in voluntary intoxication is a very limited defense” which only acts to mitigate first-degree murder to third- - 10 - J-S10014-26 degree murder
- stating that “[c]ounsel is presumed effective, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving otherwise”
- holding claims of prosecutorial misconduct and trial court error waived “as they could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal and were not”
- explaining counsel is presumed effective and petitioner bears burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*442 Justice BAER,
concurring in support of affirmance on Docket No. 651 CAP.
I join the Per Curiam Opinion’s disposition of the appeal of Michael Bardo and its affirmance of the denial of guilt-phase relief. As to the penalty phase, however, I join the Concurring Opinion and Opinion in Support of Affirmance on Docket No. 651 CAP by Justice Saylor to the extent that he would uphold the reasoning and holding of the post-conviction court in awarding penalty phase relief to Bardo because, like Justice Saylor, I believe the lower court’s determinations are sufficiently supported by the record and free of legal error.