Commonwealth v. Flor, R., Aplt.
136 A.3d 150
Pa.2016Background
- Defendant Robert Anthony Flor pled guilty to first-degree murder and received a death sentence after a penalty-phase jury; he later filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective (including failure to investigate intellectual disabilities/mitigation).
- PCRA counsel (Federal Defender) pursued an Atkins-based claim and other ineffectiveness allegations; the PCRA court granted evidentiary hearings focused on Atkins.
- After two years of proceedings, the Commonwealth moved to inspect the complete trial-counsel file (≈30,000 pages in 12 banker’s boxes) to prepare cross-examination and defend against ineffectiveness claims, acknowledging privileged material might exist but asserting waiver.
- PCRA counsel requested time to review the files and remove privileged/work-product materials; the PCRA court denied that request and ordered wholesale production of the entire file to the Commonwealth within ten days.
- Flor appealed under Pa.R.A.P. 313. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the order was immediately appealable, vacated the PCRA court’s wholesale-disclosure order, and remanded for an issue-specific privilege review consistent with precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flor) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court’s order violated attorney-client privilege/work-product doctrine by compelling production of entire trial-counsel file | Waiver is limited to materials ‘‘put in issue’’; court must do an issue-specific in‑camera or counsel-led privilege review before disclosure; wholesale production chills right to counsel | Flor’s broad ineffectiveness claims put all aspects of counsel’s work "in issue," so privilege/work-product protections were waived in toto; requiring wholesale production is more expedient | Court: Appealable; PCRA court abused discretion by ordering wholesale production without an issue-specific waiver analysis; vacated order and remanded for privileged-materials segregation/review |
| Whether discovery order was immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 313 | Order overruling privilege is a collateral order and immediately appealable | Commonwealth did not contest Rule 313 jurisdiction | Court: Discovery orders overruling privilege are collateral orders under Rule 313; jurisdiction exists |
| Whether PCRA court met Rule 902(E)(2) good-cause standard and whether original file belongs solely to client | PCRA: Commonwealth’s motion lacked particularity and factual proffer; original file is client property and counsel must safeguard it | Commonwealth: Broad requests justified by counsel’s lack of recollection and need to defend against claims; PCRA counsel could have redacted in ten days | Court: Did not decide merits of good-cause or file-ownership issues on collateral appeal (Flor failed to satisfy Rule 313 independently as to those separate claims); remanded for in‑issue privilege review (directed to permit PCRA counsel to segregate privileged materials) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 32 A.3d 243 (Pa. 2011) (requires issue‑specific waiver analysis when petitioner attacks counsel’s effectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 738 A.2d 406 (Pa. 1999) (attorney may not disclose client confidences unrelated to ineffectiveness allegations; protects against chilling effect)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 86 A.3d 771 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA discovery requires good cause; speculative invasion of work product fails good-cause test)
- Commonwealth v. Dennis, 859 A.2d 1270 (Pa. 2004) (work-product protection is fundamental in adversarial system)
- Commonwealth v. Strickler, 393 A.2d 313 (Pa. 1978) (guilty plea waives privilege against self-incrimination but does not waive attorney-client or work-product protections)