Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Balodis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 24, 2000No. 144 M.D. Appeal Docket 1998Published

1DissentNewman, Justice

I dissent. The Majority finds that counsel for Peter Balodis (Appellant) was ineffective for failing to preserve objections to the testimony of Maddi-Jane Sobel (Sobel). I disagree. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, counsel is presumed effective and the burden is with Appellant to prove otherwise. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 157-61, 527 A.2d 973, 975-76 (1987). To do so, Appellant must show that his counsel had no reasonable basis in serving his client by making the chosen decisions during trial. Id. The test should not be whether he made the best available decision, but merely whether…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Commonwealth v. DeHartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Commonwealth v. StonehouseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Commonwealth v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Commonwealth v. PearsallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API