Com. v. Saylor, J., Com. v. Saylor, J. No. 3181 EDA 2015

Joseph Saylor was convicted in 2003 of IDSI, indecent assault, and corruption of a minor; sentenced to 5–10 years’ imprisonment plus five years’ probation.
In September 2012 Saylor was detained for allegedly failing to attend a mandated sexual-offender treatment program that included a polygraph; he refused to take the polygraph asserting self‑incrimination concerns.
At a bifurcated VOP hearing (March 28, 2013) Saylor and his VOP counsel invoked Commonwealth v. Fink to argue that compelled participation in treatment/polygraph would violate the Fifth Amendment.
At the VOP sentencing (May 1, 2013) the court found Saylor in violation and resentenced him to 5–10 years’ incarceration; Saylor did not appeal that revocation/sentence.
Saylor filed a PCRA petition (June 18, 2013) alleging VOP counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the Fifth Amendment/Fink issue; the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing on Sept. 22, 2015.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding counsel had raised the Fink argument at the VOP hearing and that any challenge to the VOP court’s ruling was waived because Saylor could have raised it on direct appeal from the revocation sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether VOP counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that Saylor did not violate probation by refusing to answer incriminating questions in treatment/polygraph	Saylor: counsel failed to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege (per Fink) and thus was ineffective	Commonwealth/PCRA court: counsel did raise the Fink/self‑incrimination argument at the VOP hearing; any challenge to the court’s ruling is waivable and should have been raised on direct appeal	Counsel was not ineffective; argument was raised at the hearing, and appellate challenge to the VOP court’s ruling is waived because Saylor did not appeal the revocation sentence

Commonwealth v. Fink, 990 A.2d 751 (Pa. Super. 2010) (therapeutic polygraph/compelled disclosure implicating self‑incrimination in treatment may not alone support parole revocation)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 645 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1994) (test for arguable merit in ineffective assistance claims)
Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 852 A.2d 323 (Pa. Super. 2004) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 788 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 2001) (timing/ripeness of PCRA relief following probation revocation)