# Commonwealth v. Flor, R., Aplt.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 25, 2016 · 635 Pa. 314

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9822898

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Robert Anthony FLOR, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 25, 2016
- **Citations:** 635 Pa. 314; 136 A.3d 150; 2016 Pa. LEXIS 871; 2016 WL 1627524
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dougherty
- **Judges:** Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht
- **Cited by:** 33 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/9822898

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating, “discovery orders rejecting claims of privilege and requiring disclosure constitute collateral orders that are immediately appealable under Rule 313”
- stating: “Litigants may not…rely upon Rule 313 to challenge discovery orders for reasons unrelated to privilege claims, without satisfying the requirements of Rule 313 as to each issue”

## Opinion text

Justice DOUGHERTY,
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion with the exception of its specific mandate: “We direct the PCRA court on remand to permit PCRA counsel the opportunity to determine precisely what portions of trial counsel’s file remain privileged in light of Flor’s claims.” See Majority Opinion, at 333, 136 A.3d at 161. I agree entirely with the substance of the concurrence of the Chief Justice and believe our mandate, at a minimum, must be adjusted along those lines. We cannot lose sight of the incentive to be less than forthcoming in capital matters, nor of *335 the incentive to disputation and delay. 1 PCRA courts need to take a firm hand. Indeed, left to my own devices, I would prefer we direct all such disputes in capital matters be subject to in camera review by the PCRA court.
Justice BAER joins this Concurring Opinion.
. It appears PCRA discovery disputes have led to significant delay in a number of capital cases, requiring resolution by this Court. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 624 Pa. 405 , 86 A.3d 771 (2014); Commonwealth v. Harris, 612 Pa. 576 , 32 A.3d 243 (2011); Commonwealth v. Dennis, 580 Pa. 95 , 859 A.2d 1270 (2004); Commonwealth v. Tilley, 566 Pa. 312 , 780 A.2d 649 (2001).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9822898. Public record. Not legal advice.