*1 483 A.2d Pennsylvania, Appellant COMMONWEALTH
v. WATSON,Appellee. Herbert Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of 16,
Argued Oct. 2006. 11,
Resubmitted Jan. 2008.
Reargued April 2008. July 2008. Decided *6 Burns, Jr., Attorney’s J. District Hugh Esq., Philadelphia Office, Krulik, Pennsylva- of Jeffrey Esq., Commonwealth nia. Stretton, Chester, for Esq.,
Samuel C. West Herbert Wat- son. CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN,
BEFORE: and BAER, McCAFFERY, and TODD JJ.
OPINION Chief Justice CASTILLE.
Today presenting decide two each the identical appeals we of an inmate presently incompetent may issue whether who is compelled psychiatric to take order to render him to determine he competent wishes (PCRA).1 relief under the Post Relief Act In this Conviction matter, Sam, as in the case of v. companion Commonwealth 2005, J-36-2008, - Pa. -, 565, 49 EAP No. 952 A.2d (2008), of of WL Court Common Pleas Philadel (“PCRA court”) a phia County request by denied the Com compel the administration of such monwealth medication. follow, For the reasons that of the we reverse order court and remand for further consistent this proceedings Opinion. §§
1. 42 Pa.C.S.
9541-9546.
10, 1983,
On November
a jury
appellee
convicted
Herbert
alia,
of, inter
the crime of
murder for
first-degree
Watson
to death his
and
shooting
estranged girlfriend
the crime of
assault for
a
aggravated
shooting
seriously injuring
friend
penalty hearing,
the victim’s sister. After a
the jury
appellee
sentenced
to death. This Court affirmed appellee’s
and sentence on direct
v.
appeal.
conviction
Watson,
(1989)
(relating
523 Pa.
On filed se PCRA After petition. reassignments, several the case ultimately was to the assigned Honorable David N. Savitt of the Court Philadelphia County. Common Pleas of An amended petition 9, 2002, filed on finally July October 2001.2 On Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss the petition. On 29, 2003, January counsel for appellee filed a “Consolidated Dismiss, Response Commonwealth’s Motion to Supplemen- [PCRA], tal Petition for Relief Under and Motions for An Summary Grant Relief and for Evidentiary Hearing Appellee subsequently Under sent a series of [PCRA].” *7 rambling Judge letters to Savitt that he stating had fired his counsel and to his appeals. Consequently, wished withdraw 9, 2003, July on court a hearing, PCRA held after it which stayed proceedings and ordered that appellee examined by court’s mental health unit as as mental by well two health retained experts by psychiatrist defense Rob- counsel— Sadoff, M.D., Cooke, ert L. and psychologist Gerald Ph.D. On 9th, September granted the court a continuance to allow O’Brien, II, appellee’s by M.D., examination John S. a psychia- trist retained by the Commonwealth. Drs. Sadoff and Cooke 17th; 9th, examined on on appellee September December by examined Dr. appellee by was O’Brien and the court’s Stanton, psychiatrist, Robert M.D. 20, 2004,
At a status conference held on May the Common- wealth that the requested compel- PCRA court issue an order interim, withdrew, appointed 2. In the the first and second counsel (Samuel Stretton, present Esquire) appointed, counsel C. was and a stayed by death warrant was issued but later the PCRA court. to take order to render ling appellee psychiatric 17, 2004, the competent pursue him PCRA relief. On June informed the court hearing parties court held a at which that experts agreement appellee that the four were was addition, currently incompetent relief. PCRA mother, the court that appellee’s appellee’s counsel informed Watson, agreed Marie had to serve as his next friend. On 22nd, finding appellee present- June the court issued an order Mrs. as his next friend. ly incompetent appointing Watson hearing, obliged formally As it stated at the the court felt “for the of for- appellee incompetent purpose moving find ward,” is, that to enable the court to Mrs. as appoint Watson “dispose Testimony next friend and of the case.” Notes of (“N.T.”), 6/17/04, however, court, re- expressly at 27. The compe- on the judgment question appellee’s served whether Id. at 31. tency could be restored. 18, 2004, the court held the first of
On October two on the hearings appellee’s competency issue whether could hearing, presented be restored. At the first the defense Sadoff, testimony from Dr. one of its mental health two examination, experts. direct it On Dr. Sadoff testified was his reasonable medical opinion certainty” “within illness, “because of his mental appellee, paranoid schizophrenia psychotic, really and he is does not understand in a rational way proceedings which he’s involved or the N.T., 10/18/04, consequences of those at 22. As proceedings.” currently danger whether himself or row, others on death Dr. opined, while incarcerated Sadoff records, appellee’s prison based on his that appellee review “has not been violent.” Id. at 28.3 As to restored, competency could be when asked the court that, Although necessary holding today, 3. for our we note on cross- *8 examination, equivocated question. Dr. Sadoff on this When asked prosecution appellee danger you the whether “is not a to himself or are “Well, say,” responded: any not able to Dr. Sadoff I haven't seen evidence in the medical file that shows that correctional he’s tried himself, else, medication, anybody kill harm himself or either on or off say say so I can't that he is or is not. All I we can don’t have N.T., 10/18/04, evidence to show that he is.” at 36. “a medication that would effective there was case,” as responded Dr. follows: this Sadoff a I been tried on know, Honor. know he has I don’t Your long I don’t how different medications. know number of had, if he’s but dosages I know taken them. don’t what he’s dosage and is proper medication and right he gets im- of time and shows carefully period over monitored then it say yes, then I would works. provement, effеcts of the medications to the side respect Id. at 30. With treated, Dr. had been Sadoff appellee previously with which testified as follows: unsettling that he took there were the medications
[F]or side-effects, of the medication was that’s because some form. The injectable that are old now tranquilizers dyskine- that kind of tardive medications don’t have newer sia, some side-effects. But the newer they but all have than the of the serious side-effects medications have fewer have. old medications the medications that at 32. When asked whether
Id. Dr. competency, to restore his Sadoff had taken had failed he question because that he could answer responded Finally, Id. at when necessary data. 33. did not have Dr. testi- prescribe appellee, he would Sadoff asked what fied as follows: it, him If give Zyprexa. to take I’d the oral willing he’s
[I]f him it ... I to give to take have willing he’s not there, I’ll him an stay give that I’m sure something will Prolixin, Haldol or but those two injectable form of either the side-effects that are not so nice.... have “not so nice” identified the subsequently Id. at 34. Dr. Sadoff Haldol and Prolixin as “the shakiness we side effects of call Id. at 38. dyskinesia.” court also heard hearing,
At 18th the October Watson, mother, whom from Marie testimony examination During as his next friend. appointed court had counsel, testified as follows: Mrs. Watson by appellee’s *9 Q. you your daughter, met with me with Angеla Now have Stokes, my couple office about a weeks am I ago; correct? Yes,
A. sir. Q. And discussed all the issues about Mr. we Watson’s case; am I right? Yes,
A. did. we Q. good legal discussed that he had some issues but no We one am I they go; right? knew where would A. Uh-huh.
Q. I discussed that there a chance that Court might willing impose imprisonment be life if gave up we issues; those other do remember that? you Yes, sir, you A. on that. spoke meet, And
Q. you my also had a chance request, with Ms. McCracken from the death penalty organization and Mr. from the McHugh penalty organization; death am I correct? Yes,
A. sir. Q. You did that at my request you met them on one or issue; two occasions on this am I particular right? Yes,
A. sir. Q. conversations, And based on all you those understand it’s in the son to your interest live and not to be put death; am I correct? Yes,
A. sir. N.T., 10/18/04, added). at 43-44 (emphasis At this point Mrs. during testimony, Watson’s interjected, PCRA court prompting following additional testimony: Well, Q. let me you your ask this. That’s opinion; is that right? You him to want live?
A. It’s not I totally my opinion. think he deserves to live. Q. you Do think he doing knows what he’s he says when he wants to die? No, No, so,
A. sir. If sir. that was I would have went home he go when said home. [sic] counsel Mrs. appellee’s questioned 44-45. Thereupon, Id. at life agree accept imprison- her willingness as to Watson behalf, “I responded: to which she ment on point, him to die.” Id. at 46. At this I don’t want willing. interjected, following additional prompting the сourt again from Mrs. testimony Watson: die, don’t you You him to that’s what want.
Q. don’t want friend, is, your if his best question you’re [sic] But the *10 want, it’s to do necessarily you to do what obligation isn’t he what wants. Yes,
A. sir. him, son, him; your talked to Q. you you’ve know he’s Now is that correct? Yes,
A. sir. he
Q. What does want? really I it not be to die. I don’t think hope A. would would if like he to die. I think he has decided he has to live wants been it be better to be dead. living, he’s Well, a make that Q. people is that reasonable —some you’re incompetent, and that doesn’t mean because decision give up any then that been asked is to option you’ve imprisonment he do life claims he has and will without you think he wants? parole; is what No, A. sir. he be exonerated?
Q. You think wants to Well, time, think been here all the he did the A. I he’s I justice. I think he think he wants suffering and wants justice.
Id. 46-47. sister, testimony appellee’s Ange- from briefly hearing After Stokes, pro- court concluded the October 18th la the PCRA Al- hearing testimony from himself. ceeding by incoherent, testimony it does though portions are “You response pointed question, include a direct court’s the death penalty?”: want
Yes, I’m concerned about just got up I there. People do. normally. mother there my mother because wouldn’t be my they said They saying she don’t involved. Normally get I had a having problem. I be a mental never something The reason I took my only mental at all life. problem they prison. harassments And when medicatiоn was before, I them that. The came out there and me told saw prob- me a mental something having said about psychiatrist I spoke saying lem. time he came out there Every it, it I on and made you say anything letter that don’t wrote now, clear, I’m way speaking says nothing the same death you just only me. But what said that wrong with said, I I’ve been time. It don’t applies long down —like doing have to do life sentence. I’ve been anything with jail. something time. is It have to do that’s death Jail case, person, my and then the it [the victim] me in the just right common And it never set law wife. I beginning. judged say any- All have to be don’t now. could, I thing psychiatrist. about God to a I don’t know stuff, why up he came weak which obvious. you
And then second if everybody—which line— a Judge, you why you’re see that and that’s there to show *11 is, that that. it it people show And that’s all but that’s what clearly penalty applies. is this case death I’ve been on I down death row and that’s the decision. don’t my want to burden in- family. Normally they get don’t lawyer. I don’t need a a lawyer volved. The over here is bad one. He is efficient to on the letters. It would hard understand because it I that everything shows said do, he I would he did. don’t want him on the case and he representing me; doing came on. He’s not he’s he what lawyer to do. A the truth on represent want have a If person what said. I said I’m can he guilty, how represent a lie. He said a lot about I’m saying. what So that’s it.
N.T., added). 10/18/04, (emphasis at 57-59 22, 2004,
On November PCRA court held a secоnd evidentiary hearing at Dr. testified for the which O’Brien appellee’s competency on issue whether O’Brien, of Dr. direct examination During
could be restored. corresponding records introduced medical prosecution commitments, be- occurred involuntary four which that Dr. noted May 1995 and 2003. O’Brien December tween recur- [appellee]’s records “document the commitment of his aggravation symptoms, a result of hospitalized as rently others, verbally either include towards aggressiveness dangerousness and also physical aggressiveness, or actual undergoing hunger losing weight by in terms of himself to kill strike, verbalizing also a desire an but example, as N.T., 11/22/04,at 24. himself.” sampling in some detail as to a being questioned After as records, generally Dr. testified more follows: O’Brien medication, treatment or ... he is not under Q. So when ... ? incompetent he becomes Yes, that’s correct/4-1 A. he can be treated?
Q. But him docu- is as A. Yes. And the treatment effective mented the records. treated, it that he is your opinion he’s
Q. And when competent? Yes, competent. it is he’s my opinion
A.
Id. at 24-25. examination, asked prosecution direct concluding
Before
“go through
factors
were
permission
for the court’s
States,
166, 123 S.Ct.
v.
539 U.S.
discussed
United
Sell[
(2003)5].”
11/22/04,
N.T.,
at 29.
With
Q. Okay. And are there any less intrusive means of treat- ing restoring or Mr. to competent Watson other than [sic] him? medicating No,
A. in my opinion nothing. there is He’s basically been under the supervision personnel years clinical for many only during and it’s of time periods actually taking that he’s his medications that his symptoms are under control. Q. Okay. And in your opinion is these administering drugs to restore the competence defendant medically appropri- ate under the circumstances? Well,
A. his treating medically condition is appropriate with the medications that I or any antipsychotic mentioned medications because those are the physi- medications that a cian select to appropriately treat his condition. Id. at 30-31.
Notwithstanding this testimony, conclusion of the hearing, inexplicably the court that “treatment found and/or trial, and, alternatives, taking necessary account of less intrusive significantly important governmental to further trial-related interests.
Sell,
medication could not and would not result defendant sufficiently proceed.” Id. at 82. Accord- being competent ingly, cooperate appel- the court directed Mrs. Watson relief under the and scheduled pursuing lee’s counsel PCRA petition. a on the merits of PCRA On hearing 15, 2004, certifying the court entered an order December 702(b),6 § under 42 interlocutory appeal matter for Pa.C.S. timely permission filed a for petition and the Commonwealth 8, 2005, March pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1311. On appeal howеver, denying this issued an order the Common- Court petition. wealth’s order,
Following this the PCRA court held a status Court’s 4,May hearing, on 2005. At the after hearing reciting case, the history recent of the PCRA court noted procedural following: ... I a of a letter that mother Marie copy received Watson Rendell; sent to the Honorable Ed and as a result Governor letter, that I reading although great respect of have here, it appears for the mother of the defendant that feeling a substantial that she an may there’s likelihood be very dispassionately to be able to deter- appropriate person his next friend or right guard- mine the defendant’s as [sic] ian.
N.T., 5/4/05, Nevertheless, at 4-5. after a discussion off the that led it to that the remained that possibility record believe disposed type agreement,” the case could “be some of id. 13,7 September the PCRA court continued the matter until 702(b) provides 6. Section of the Judicial Code as follows: (b) Interlocutory appeals by permission. a court or other —When unit, government making interlocutory an order in a matter jurisdiction appellate which its final order be within the of an court, opinion controlling be that order shall such involves a ground question of law which there is substantial for difference as to opinion appeal may and that an immediate from order materi- matter, ally advance the ultimate terminаtion of the it shall so state in discretion, may thereupon, appellate order. The court such its permit appeal interlocutory an to be taken from such order. ' 702(b). § 42 Pa.C.S. immediately 7. The statement followed a discussion with counsel court's record, off the which makes it difficult to discern the nature of the on Mrs. next friend making ruling a Watson’s 2005 without status. 11, 2005, court issued September on PCRA
Finally,
it
concluding
its reasons
opinion explaining
brief
deny
request
should
the Commonwealth’s
in order to enable
to take
compelled
psychiatric
him
relief. The
entire rationale as
court’s
in the
is as
explained
opinion
follows:
“essen
ruling
The
claims that this Court’s
it
tially puts
by rendering
impossible
an end to this case
(or
purposes
out the execution
for all
even
carry
practical
*14
That conten
the current proceeding).”
move forward with
the matter
appeal,
tion is belied
the record. Prior to this
2,
hearing May
scheduled to
the PCRA
on
proceed
was
with
2005,
the “next friend”
represented by
defendant
(his mother)
procedure
approved by
and counsel. This
was
Pennsylvania Supreme
Court
in Commonwealth v.
(2002). Moreover,
289,
570 Pa.
identified oral evidentiary hearing. granted This Court vember 16, 2006, day the same heard on October argument, which was Sam, supra. v. that were heard arguments on 2008. reargued April The cases two were Appealability of the proceeding Before merits Common consider the contention of appeal, we first wealth’s the order of jurisdiction that this lacks because counsel8 Court subject interlocutory court is an order is not it is responds The Commonweаlth appeal. immediate Pa.R.A.P. al entitled to immediate review under of a as of from a collateral order lower appeals right lows court, and, exercise alternatively, plena that this Court should § ry jurisdiction pursuant to Pa.C.S. 726. and, 313(b), Rule an order is considered
Under collateral — (1) therefore, order is right “separa- as of appealable —if: (2) action”; main “the ble from and collateral to the cause (3) review”; denied important -involvedis too be right that if presented postponed “the is such review question case, irreparably until final in the the claim judgment will 313(b). respect require- Pa.R.A.P. to the first lost.” With *15 ment, that the order at issue is parties agree separable both Indeed, to main cause of action. the from and collateral the psychi- to take appellee compelled issue of whether should from, has no bear- atric distinct and completely on, pursue, the he ing questions whether wishes to, relief. thus proceed he is entitled collateral We advocate, argu- Although generally we attribute it is counsel who be, Doing parties they represent. so would at ments to die whom case, however, best, misleading only argument in this as it is not the position opposing that he articulates but also the he advances in the alone, parties agree are counsel’s as all Commonwealth’s motion that appelleе incompetent pursue post- whether to that remains to decide conviction relief.... Sam, point rings 952 A.2d at n. 15. The even truer here than it did Sam, repeatedly expressed his desire to be as this has N.T., 10/18/04, See, e.g., relief. at executed and not to collateral 57-59. collateral order requirements the other the address two rule, are not here. argues counsel satisfied which 313(b), of Rule the Com-
Regarding requirement the second why by reasons the right implicated monwealth offers several to be important these is too immediate review appeals First, argues, denied. the “the issue of invol- Commonwealth constitu- untary questions medical treatment ‘raises clear ” Sell, 2 (quoting tional Brief at importance.’ Commonwealth’s 2174). Second, the 539 U.S. S.Ct. Commonwealth contends, the also concerns “important public order below those of the immediate Id. In beyond litigants.” interests asserts that the PCRA court’s particular, Commonwealth the societal interest in the of criminal ruling finality frustrates proceedings presented likely and that the issue recur in will cases, in defendants often mental capital allege future incompetence. respect requirement,
With third the Commonwealth nature, that, argues “[b]y very irreparably its the claim bewill lost if the instant is not Id. at 4. The result appeal allowed.” review, contends, denying of this Court’s avoided, i.e., be “the harm to be very sought indefinitely would delaying rеsolution of this case requiring Common- litigate proceedings against purported wealth next friend, conclude finally [appellee]’s appeals.” which will Id.
In response, appellee’s attempts distinguish counsel instant case from Regarding requirement, Sell. the second counsel appeals implicate asserts that these do not an impor- right tant because the PCRA court denied Common- request. Noting wealth’s that the court Sell held “an requiring involuntary order treatment satisfies the ‘impor- requirement,” appellee’s tance’ counsel argues the second 313(b) requirement of Rule is not satisfied here because “does not seek to appeal protect any right Commonwealth’s [ ] of clear constitutional importance.” Appellee’s Brief at 37. As for the requirement, appellee’s third counsel distin- the instant from guish case Sell based on the outcome in the *16 Sell, notes, In appellee’s lower court. counsel denying review certainly meant that the defendant would be medicated so that trial, a harm proceed the case could that could not be Here, if ultimately acquitted. undone even he were counsel the as the argues, losing party merely “spec- might eventually regain competency ulates that Mr. Watson claims,” then seek to raise new a harm too might specula- 313(b). Id. at for an under Rule appeal tive to allow 37-38. 313(b) Taking the third of Rule before the requirement second, “the initially question present we determine whether that if postponed judgment ed is such review is until final 313(b). case, the the claim lost.” Pa.R.A.P. irreparably will case, review, grant In the instant if we do immediate can be to take question compelled psychi whether atric medication to restore to decide he competence relief pursue definitively even wants collateral will never be dispositive As a result of the order of the answered. PCRA court, relevant, appellee’s competence longer is no and wheth er to collateral relief becomes a matter Marie Watson, friend, mother and next decide. words, here, if other is denied review Commonwealth’s claim that compelled permissible to ensure a single, comprehensive proceeding simply disappears forever; the third of the collateral requirement order doctrine easily is therefore satisfied. 313(b)
Application requirement second of Rule that, a more requires analysis. extensive We first note under 313(b), “it Rule is not sufficient that the issue be important to parties. Rather it must particular rights deeply involve in public policy going beyond particular litigation rooted Frisk, v. Geniviva hand.” 555 Pa. A.2d 1213-14 (1999). Moreover, “overarching principle” determining of an issue for of Rule 313 is that “an importance purposes important issue is if the interests that potentially go unprotected appellate without immediate review of that issue are significant efficiency sought relative to the interests to be rule.” Ben v. final judgment advanced adherence to the *17 (1999) (internal Schwartz, 475, 547, 556 Pa. A.2d 552 729 omitted). quotation marks by interest invoked determining finality whether of the importance requirement
Commonwealth satisfies doctrine, collateral order are our discussion in guided by we sufficiently Commonwealth v. Sam of that interest is satisfy prong interest important important government for the involuntary of the Sell test administration of medi- cation: absolutely enduring
There is
no doubt that there is an
interest
finality
proceedings.
societal
of criminal
Indeed,
very objects
finality
of the law’s
is the
of its
“[o]ne
Zant,
467, 491,
v.
499
111
judgments.” McCleskey
U.S.
1454,
(1991). “Finality
S.Ct.
In Pennsylvania, just the societal interest in finality is rather, theory; a notion of criminal it is in the reflected Indeed, very letter of our primary PCRA. intent of of the many Act’s 1995 amendments narrow 504 a scheme thereby relief and establish
grounds for collateral may processed promptly be petitions collateral Morris, Pa. v. 565 finality. order achieve Peterkin, (2001); 722 A.2d 642-43. A.2d 739 Assembly’s finality intent achieve The General in the Act’s for provision is evident proceedings particularly (Castille, J., Moms, A.2d at 749 of execution. stays 9545(c)(1) § that PCRA (providing 42 Pa.C.S. concurring); Pa.C.S. authority issuing stay); source of only 9545(c)(2) of suc of likelihood (requiring “strong showing § issued). This stay may the merits” before cess on in the any more than other contained provision, perhaps that the PCRA, Assembly’s recognition reflects the General *18 to seek permitted defendants are why reason convicted “not to convicted criminals with provide collateral relief is sanctions, provide but to escape the means to well-deserved wrongly for those have been opportunity a reasonable who injustice the of their convic to demonstrate convicted Peterkin, collateral reviewing A.2d at 643. In 722 tion[s].” distinguish it the role of this Cоurt to between appeals, is or and those who deserve wrongly unfairly convicted so, to the fact In are not blind doing their sanctions. we cases, that, fall into the latter in for those who capital in 809 A.2d “delay Haag, is often an end itself.” category, (Castille, J., v. concurring) (quoting Commonwealth at 286 (2000) Michael, 1274, (Castille, 356, 1284 562 Pa. 755 A.2d Morris, , (recognizing 771 A.2d 734 concurring)); J. cf. that, second PCRA capital because was defendant’s appeal using process that he potential “merely petition, greater”). sentence delay the execution of his [wa]s cases, that at some ignore in “we cannot Particularly capital finality interest be proceedings society’s point Morris, 739; A.2d at id. at 734 overarching.” comes 771 cf. “more finality interest is (noting that Commonwealth’s litigating petition). a second PCRA compelling” when Sam, A.2d at 952 576-77. case,
In of the PCRA court’s by seeking the instant review to take compelled of its request denial
505 psychiatric restore his competence, Com- is attempting monwealth to vindicate in- society’s compelling case, terest in an bringing litigation end of this now well into its third decade. Counsel’s no argument constitutional of rights appellee are at stake because the not prevail Commonwealth did Im- point. below misses portance is not one-sided. We have never subscribed to such a slanted of interpretation what Rule 318 means “right[s] ... important Ben, too tо be denied supra review.” See of (speaking “interests” along rights); Commonwealth v. Dennis, 95, 1270, (2004) (same). 580 Pa. 859 A.2d 1278 fact, recently this Court adopt declined to such a rigid applica- tion of the collateral order doctrine allowing when immediate review a case involving federal in the finality interest civil cases. See Pridgen v. Parker Corp., 588 Pa. Hannifin 405, 422, (2006) 905 A.2d (determining applicability federal statute of repose product liability claims against aircraft manufacturers to be sufficiently “important” under 313(b)); Dennis, Rule see also 859 A.2d at (allowing immediate of appeal review involving party’s right to exercise protections doctrine); of work-product Commonwealth v. Ken- (2005) ). 583 Pa. nedy, 876 A.2d (followingDennis Accordingly, we conclude that the finality interests implicated by the instant are appeal of such importance that this Court should grant review.
Moreover, there is a liberty interest implicated this case *19 A as well. death row inmate the enjoys right to personally determine he wishes to institute a collateral attack upon a final judgment and sentence of death. To hold that a PCRA court’s finding that a prisoner on death row cannot be medicated to determine whether he agree would with and approve of the course that his next friend take substi- judgment tutes the of the friend for the self-determination of If, course, individual. of medication to prove incapa- were ble of restoring the defendant’s competence, the next friend procedure But, could be invoked. that is not an equivalent substitute for the defendant’s self-determination. It is obvi- ously a matter public of importance that this Court ultimately
506 friend, or it the next is in the first instance whether
determine
should
competence,
who
point
medicated to
an inmate
attack. Because the
a collateral
to pursue
determine whether
of Rule
requirements
all three
has satisfied
Commonwealth
denial of the Common-
313(b),
court’s
hold that
we
psychiatric
to take
compelled
request
wealth’s
and, therefore,
order
an
collateral
appealable
is
immediate review.9
subject to our
Appeal
Merits of Commonwealth’s
of fact
findings
court’s
reviews the PCRA
This Court
the record.
supported by
are
they
to determine whether
134,
1119,
Reaves,
923 A.2d
592 Pa.
v.
(2007).
conclusions
law
the PCRA court’s
We review
scope
error.
Id.
are free from
Our
they
determine whether
and the
of the PCRA court
findings
limited to “the
review
hearing,
court’s
viewed
the record of the PCRA
on
evidence
Id.
party.”
the prevailing
most favorable to
light
argu
parties’ respective
to the
proceeding
Before
Sell,
ments,
Court’s decision
High
first review
we
of the case sub
for the resolution
the framework
provides
a ‘significant’
“an individual has
recognized that
judice. Sell
‘avoiding
interest’
protected ‘liberty
constitutionally
” Sеll, 539
drugs.’
of antipsychotic
administration
unwanted
178,
Washington
Harper,
v.
(quoting
507 (3) interests”; interests,” taking “is those necessary further (4) alternatives; “is medically account of less intrusive and i.e., light in the medical interest appropriate, patient’s best 180-81, of his Id. at medical condition.” S.Ct. omitted).10 (emphasis however, conditions,
In four establishing above Sell emphasized they always applicable Court that are not whenev- er the Government seeks to a defendant to take compel antipsychotic medication: the court these is emphasize applying
We standards seeking involuntary determine whether administration of drugs necessary significantly particular gov- is to further a interest, ernmental namely, rendering interest competent to stand triаl. A defendant court need not consider forced for that allow kind for a different if purpose, forced medication is warranted purpose, purposes such as the set out in related to Harper dangerousness, purposes individual’s or related to the individual’s own interests refusal to take drugs puts where his health gravely at risk. 181-82,
Id. at
The above caveat in
significant,
Sell is
as the Court explicit-
ly “emphasize[d]” that
the purpose for which medication
would be administered affects the evidentiary showing re-
Sell,
In
quired.
purpose
forced medication was to
trial,
render the
competent
defendant
to stand
an outcome
(or
counsel)
the defendant
contrast,
his
did not
desire.
purpose
of forcibly medicating
this case is to
if,
enable him to pursue PCRA relief
compe-
once rendered
tent, he so chooses. The PCRA serves an
sub-
important
four-part
10. The Sell Court derived its
test from the Court's decisions in
Harper, supra (holding
danger
permissible
to self or others is
basis
compelled
antipsychotic drugs
administration of
to treat serious
illness)
Nevada,
127, 135,
Riggins
mental
and
v.
504 U.S.
112 S.Ct.
(1992)
that,
(noting
Harper, forcing
Sam, A.2d at 952 574-75 Nevertheless, the four-factor assume that test parties Sell’s deciding appeal. for the See applies purposes instant Brief at 30-38 that (arguing Commonwealth’s “[e]ach court”); requirements established before the PCRA was [Sell ] to (applying prongs Brief at 31-35 four facts Appellee’s Sell ).11 above, judice Although, sub for reasons cited we do that the are constitutionally not believe four factors command ed, purposes analysis we will track that here explication, Sam, into the weighing as while distinction balance. court’s its challenging request In the PCRA denial of that to compelled psychiatric be to take render appellee if, relief competent, him PCRA once he competent chooses, the argues so that the PCRA court determining as a matter of that “absent evidence erred law is a himself order danger the defendant or others an him of the involuntarily medicate violative law.” 2). at (quoting Op. Brief at 28 Ct. Commonwealth’s PCRA Sell, The Commonwealth contends that the PCRA court which for this it. Id. at proposition, “expressly cited refutes” cited, also (noting Haag, supra, that PCRA court Although involuntary only he "concerns treatment 11. asserts that Sell competent (Appellee's make an in order to accused stand trial” Brief 31), analysis appellee’s PCRA counsel defends the court’s Sell rather challenging application than its of the Sell standard. judiee, Sell to the facts sub the Com- inapposite). Applying the conclusion that argues, necessarily yields monwealth denying request. the Commonwealth’s PCRA court erred order legally that it could not support proposition To that he a posed be medicated absent evidence others, the court cited two author- danger to himself or PCRA Haag citing Haag, and Sell. appar- In court ities: to the fact the instant case was ently adverting by Mrs. appellee represented scheduled to proceed, Watson, appointed the court had to serve as whom next friend. that, a next Haag, represented by this held Court “when counsel, is not a prisoner’s incompetence
friend and bar Haag, case.” penalty effective collateral review a death *22 however, Haag, rather than an- merely begs, A.2d at 278. judiee, sub swers, to question only the for the alternative in a next or discussed proceeding through perceived friend Haag was suspension proceedings,” “an indefinite of PCRA prevent the resolution of issues “while evidence which would and memories are still fresh.” Id. at 280. in the Conversely, case, instant the has a more compre- Commonwealth advanced friend, proceeding through hensive to a next alternative with the if to prospect proceeding a later the defendant returned competence. Specifically, the seeks to Commonwealth restore the promptly appellee’s competence through adminis- antipsychotic thereby allowing tration of him to make drugs, his question own rational decision as to the more fundamental and, so, to if whether PCRA relief to assist counsel. Haag Haag purport this course. Nor to prevent does did a lay legislative-type prevent down rule that would consider- alternative, ation of and more promising, paradigms. review Therefore, because Haag is to readily distinguishable, we turn Sell. the court’s reliance upon Sam, argues, pursuant As first Commonwealth Sell, to in the finality capital societal interest cases sufficiently important justify compelling appellee is to take that, under psychiatric Noting this instance. Sell, in determining the seriousness of the crime is relevant stake, interests are at important governmental capital observes that this is a case and there- Commonwealth crimes “of the utmost seriousness and impor- fore involves Brief at 30. The interest is finality tance.” Commonwealth’s here, contends, for strong the Commonwealth two particularly (1) has quarter century passed appel- reasons: almost since sentenced, by lee “an absurd amount of time even (2) id.; and capital litigation,” standards of Commonwealth ie., relief respect appellee’s has offered sentence — contingent upon agreeing conversion to a life his to the term — convictions, of all an offer the challenges dismissal his not extend to next friend “since appellee’s Commonwealth will whim,” an at his agreement may by [appellee] such voided id. at 32. interest,
In addition to society’s finality Commonwealth in allowing [appellee] asserts “the obvious interest to control the course of his Brief at 34. appeals.” own Commonwealth’s interest, The contends that this autonomy Sam, particularly strong which it also invokes is here because next friend has indicated her appellee’s willingness that, admission, her follow actions own she believes are contrary appеllee’s own wishes. case, companion
Like counsel for in our Sam responds by distinguishing counsel Commonwealth’s finali- ty government’s interest here from the federal interest that, to trial. Counsel for bringing appellee emphasizes Sell holding today, appellee no matter our will remain what *23 Thus, incarcerated on death counsel appellee’s argues, row. “the cries of ‘finality’ ring only Commonwealth’s hollow—the interlocutory appeal, finality real blow to here is this which delays judicial these unnecessarily proceedings wastes Brief Appellee’s resources.” at 33. Counsel for does the autonomy address interest asserted the Common- wealth. already finality
We have determined that interest seeking the Commonwealth invokes in admin- involuntary medication to render psychiatric appellee compe- istration tent to determine whether to relief pursue PCRA satisfies the importance requirement of the collateral order doctrine. See supra at 552-54. reasoning equally Our that context justifies finality Commonwealth’s reliance here on the interest in satisfying the first factor of Sell. The fact that a next friend has been appointed does not ensure the same degree of finality that a competent medicated and inmate with, could. To begin already expressed PCRA court has hesitation about Mrs. Watson’s as next suitability appellee’s friend. As the PCRA court the May noted at 2005 status hearing, “there’s substantial likelihood that [Mrs. Watson] may not be an appropriate person to be able to very dispas- sionately determine [appellee]’s right as his next friend.” [sic] N.T., 5/4/05, 4-5. at
More importantly,
notes,
as the
appellee’s
counsel has already sought assurances from the PCRA court
that, should appellee
time,”
regain competence “at some future
counsel would be permitted “to file ... any additional claims
subsequently
were
identified.”
[Appellee]’s Notice of
Exhibits &
Filing Supplemental
(unnum-
Legal
Authority at
bered), at Reproduced Record at 333a. Counsel presumably
dicta to that effect in Haag,
on
relying
speculated
that, if Haag regained competence after his next friend failed
relief,
to obtain PCRA
“Haag would have the
opportunity
seek
review claims
PCRA,
otherwise unavailable under the
but unraisable in his first petition due to his incompetence.”12
Haag,
via next friend the finality rehearsal PCRA interest proceeding, for a future true More- rings enough. identified the Commonwealth over, case, like instant Sam: Sell, caveat, 539 the Sell see at 181-
clearly U.S. implicates 82, 123 existence of “differ (recognizing possible S.Ct. compelled ent medication such “purposes for as purposes” interests”). Medicating ap related the individual’s to own relief, pursue he can decide pellee so that whether review, in its he desires pursuit and then assist if collateral appellee’s is in interest.
Sam, Therefore, hold that the A.2d at 579. we Common- the first of the Sell test. prong wealth satisfied Sell, next examine Consistently with we sig administration of involuntary antipsychotic drugs will finality interest in and nificantly further the Commonwealth’s his making rational appellee’s concomitant interest own PCRA relief. This determination as to whether to to show that administra requires factor the Commonwealth (1) substantially is: render likely tion such medication (2) unlikely and side appellee substantially have competent; significantly ability effects interfere his to assist that will Sell, 181,123 counsel. 539 U.S. S.Ct. 2174. Dr. psychiatrist,
The asserts that its expert Commonwealth O’Brien, in his testimo- requirements both these addressed cites particular, Dr. O’Brien’s ny. Commonwealth (1) medicated, testimony competent if that: would (2) interests; and the newеr represent antipsychot- his own not drugs Risperdal) ic he recommended and (Zyprexa ability cause side assist PCRA impairing appellee’s effects that, testify- *25 of that petent proceed” finding supported by to is fact is “and, Appel record thus must be deferred to this Court.” counsel, Cooke, Brief at 34. to Dr. According appellee’s lee’s “found that expert psychologist, drugging the defense’s will Moreover, Id. at 21. not make Mr. Watson competent.” asserts, Dr. appellee’s psychiatrist counsel defense Sadoff speculation that “it that require testified would conclude Id. drugging forced make Mr. competent.” will Watson notes, As the Dr. O’Brien testified that it opinion antipsychotic was his that render would In this appellee competent reaching PCRA relief. conclusion, Dr. of upon O’Brien relied records from each commitments, four appellee’s involuntary which showed he appellee’s symptoms taking abated once resumed medi- namely, Zyprexa Risperdal. and Dr. O’Brien further cation — that the opined re-administration of one or the other of these medications would not cause side effects that interfere would appellee’s ability with to assist PCRA counsel. In rendering opinion, this Dr. O’Brien relied not upon only knowledge his familiarity and these medications a treating physician as but also his actual to the appellee’s response review medi- cations the recent The past. PCRA court did not state that or, so, it this if testimony why. discredited Appellee’s counsel’s characterization of this is not question Neither of persuasive. experts the two defense forwarded unequivocal conclusions that counsel In presently advocates. asserting that found that Dr. Cooke medication would not appellee competent, render counsel cites no appellee’s record Counsel, instead, evidence. to the appears referring representation he makes in his “Counter-statement of the Case” his brief to this Court that “Dr. Cooke found illness, ‘because of the chronic nature of the the medication not his he change would status and would continue to remain if incompetent’ Appellee’s (quot- even medicated.” Brief at 10 5). N.T., 6/17/04, Cooke, however, ing testify Dr. did not before the court. the court Although PCRA did admit Dr. evidence, expert report Cooke’s into that is not the source of the conclusion that counsel attributes to Dr. Cooke. Instead, appellee’s counsel here his own quotes characteriza- tion to the court as to the conclusion allegedly reached An by Dr. Cooke. advocate’s characterization is not sufficient a court’s of fact. support findings “evidence” Appellee’s counsel’s characterization of Dr. Sadoffs testimо- More it ny equally questionable. importantly, impossible is rectify the PCRA court’s that medication finding “could not” render appellee competent finding —a it cited no Dr. actual testimony evidence —with Sadoffs that, gets right “if he medication and the proper dosage carefully and is monitored over a of time period and shows I improvement, say yes, then would then it works.” realm, course, psychiatric there is often little *26 Defense counsel’s claim certainty. respecting “specula- the Here, tion” is an ineluctable of the required part equation. however, medication, asked to the effect of predict likely when the from the expert evidence Commonwealth and the defense consistent. That that antipsychotic was evidence showed med- ication be to render substantially likely appellee compe- would tent substantially unlikely and to have side effects that would significantly interfere his to assist ability with PCRA counsel to pursue should he choose PCRA relief. Sell,
Consistently with
we next consider whether
involuntary
the
administration of antipsychotic drugs is neces
sary to achieve the dual interests we have identified. This
factor
the
requires
“any
show that
alterna
tive,
unlikely
less intrusive treatments are
to achieve substan
Sell,
tially
same results.”'
515
finality
interest.
necessary
is
achieve
Commonwealth’s
interest
counsel asserts that
the Commonwealth’s
Appellee’s
proceed
in
finality
by allowing
litigation
is furthered
a next friend.
noted
the fact that a
already
explained why
We have
next
has
not eliminate
appointed
society’s
friend
been
does
finality
supra
(noting
appellee’s
concern. See
at 557
that
that,
has
from
court
already sought
counsel
assurances
PCRA
future,
appellee regain
should
in
counsel
competence
would
permitted
litigate any additional claims that were subse-
identified);
11
in
quently
Haag,
(opining,
[t]he Rather, in finality. interest the instant case clearly impli- caveat, Sell, 181-82, cates the Sell see U.S. S.Ct. (recognizing possible existence of “different purposes” compelled medication such “purposes as related to the interests”). individual’s own Medicating appellee so that he relief, can decide to pursue and then assist review, pursuit its if he desires collateral interest.
Sam, 952 Regarding interest, A.2d at 579. this autonomy record support does not the notion allowing present litigation proceed with Mrs. as next serving Watson friend be adequate. According to her testimony, Mrs. Wat son’s conclusion that her pursuit of PCRA relief for appellee in appellee’s was interest based on her conversations with *27 counsel, appellee’s counsel and death penalty shadow none of appears receiving whom to be or any cooperation encourage N.T., 10/18/04, appellee ment from whatsoever. See at 43-44 (responding affirmatively question, to the “And on based [the] counsel], you conversations [with understand it’s the inter death[?]”). your est of son to and not to be put live For his part, appellee to the expressed PCRA court his ovm desire that his death sentence be executed. rationally currently competent is not appellee
While relief, testified Dr. O’Brien choose PCRA whether and Dr. appellee’s competence, that medication would restore notes, Dr. As the Commonwealth disagree. did not Sadoff that there no less intrusive confirmed were expressly O’Brien ad- other than the appellee’s competence restoring means of this rendering of medication. antipsychotic ministration that, during years appеl- the when Dr. O’Brien noted opinion, clinicians, symp- of supervision appellee’s the lee under of time during periods the only “under control” toms were testimony Dr. O’Brien’s taking he the medication. when was Therefore, by the record made regard undisputed. in this is finding compels judice sub Commonwealth necessary to medication is antipsychotic of administration as as finality interest well further the societal exercise his to collat- right determining interest whether eral review. Sell, the admin we ask whether
Finally, guided by
appropriate.
drugs
medically
is
antipsychotic
istration
Sell,
medically appropri
a treatment
meaning
Within
of his
light
if
“in the
best medical interest
patient’s
ate
it is
Sell,
181,
With it testified that notes that Dr. O’Brien monwealth antipsy- to treat medically appropriate indeed be cites rec- prison The also chotic medication. indicating physicians court ords admitted appellee. such medication for repeatedly prescribed there had notes, con- Sadoff, did nоt provide Dr. the Commonwealth trary opinion. *28 counsel asserts that “Dr. Sadoffs response, appellee’s
In drugging that forced would testimony! ] unrebutted was ][ injection of like Haldol through drugs to be have achieved serious, Prolixin, life-threatening do have the side- claims are absent from some effects that the Commonwealth Therefore, appellee Brief at 35. counsel for drugs.” Appellee’s has failed to that the argues, show invol- is untary antipsychotic medically administration of medication in the instant case. appropriate testimony again
This characterization of Dr. Sadoffs not that testify appellee inaccurate. Dr. Sadoff did would injected “life-threatening” to be medications with have with Rather, Dr. that he pre- side effects. Sadoff testified (the injectable scribe Haldol or Prolixin medications with more effects) if to take only appellee Zyprexa serious side refused (one less serious effects that of two oral medications with side event, voluntarily past). any had taken Dr. appellee characterized the side effects of Haldol and Sadoff never (iden- N.T., 10/18/04, Prolixin at 38 “life-threatening.” as See tifying side effect of Haldol and Prolixin as “the shakiness that dyskinesia”). importantly, call More Dr. Sadoff did not we testify treating any that with of the above medi- Thus, medically inappropriate. cations was Dr. O’Brien’s (that in this testimony regard treating appellee antipsy- chotic medication re- medically appropriate) only was consistent of mained unrebutted —it was with that Dr. Sadoff.
The record sub therefore more than judice adequate burden, Sell, assumed support Commonwealth’s under that the administration of medication is showing antipsychotic in the case sub medically appropriate judice. find all four
Because we that factors the Sell test satisfied, that have been hold the PCRA court erred we due determining process precludes federal involun tary administration order to advance the process PCRA the instant case.13 Moreover, Sell, 13. because the Commonwealth satisfied we need not squarely satisfy determine whether a more relaxed standard would due (if compelling appellee necessary) conclusion that
Our rationally medication to enable him to determine take relief does not offend the federal PCRA Clause, however, does not end our inquiry. Due Process the decision of the counsel contends Appellee’s *29 counsel grounds. Namely, court can be affirmed on alternate companion for as does counsel our appellee argues, Sam’s case, Act Pennsylvania that the Mental Health Procedures (“MHPA” Act”)14 requires or “the that the Commonwealth’s medi antipsychotic the administration of request compel cation denied. be 103 of the MHPA that the Act
Noting provides that Sectiоn for all treat- rights procedures involuntary “establishes § ment of ill coun- mentally persons,” appellee’s P.S. treatment involuntary sel contends that “unless allowed MHPA, entirely,” Appellee’s the it is forbidden Brief at 22. 301(a) Act, the Citing argues Section of counsel treatment may already be for an inmate who has been tried compelled if the inmate a clear and of harm only “poses present danger to others or to himself.” Id. at 23.15Because the PCRA court caveat, given autonomy
process,
appellee's
the
interest in
under
Sell
availing
complete
himself of
PCRAreview.
amended,
9, 1976,
§§
July
P.L.
50 P.S.
14. Act of
as
7101-7503.
authority
argument
precludes
for
that the
15. As additional
his
MHPA
here, appellee's
upon
following
compelled medication
counsel relies
the
procedural history Haag, supra:
sentence from our recitation of the
4, 1999,
Following hearing
January
a
on
the PCRA court dismissed
Department
motion
the
of
be
[that
the
Corrections
[Commonwealth’s]
provide
Haag
paranoid schizophrenia]
ordered to
treatment
for
Attorney
presented
the court found that the
General had
no
because
Haag
danger
required
evidence that
was a
to himself or others as is
involuntary
for
treatment of all individuals under the Mental Health
Act.
[Procedures]
footnote).
Haag,
(citing
§
In
reliance
the MHPA in
rejecting
upon
Sam’s counsel’s
our
case,
companion
noted as
we
follows:
in
post-
We considered the
of the MHPA the
applicability
Jermyn,
conviction context Commonwealth v.
con-
which
cerned a death
inmate’s
to be
competence
row
executed.
claimed that the
court erred in
Jermyn
applying
lower
competence
Wainwright,
standard set forth
Ford v.
477
ie„
(1986),
U.S.
106
the inmate penalty understands the reasons for death Instead, implications. and its Jermyn argued, lower MHPA, court should 402 upon have relied Section of the provides, pertinent part, as follows: permissibility compelled competent of medication to render an inmate to determine whether to PCRArelief. proceed on criminal Incompetence
§ 7402.
responsibility as defense
charges
lack of criminal
and
(a)
a
Incompetency.
person
Definition
—Whenever
found to be substan-
a crime is
charged
has been
who
of the
object
nature or
unable to understand
tially
assist in his
and
participate
him or
against
proceedings
tried, con-
to be
defense,
incompеtent
shall be deemed
he
continues.
incapacity
as such
long
so
victed or sentenced
* * * *
1996).
(amended
that the
determining
§
P.S.
in Jermyn
noted
proceeding,
to the
we
apply
did not
MHPA
It applies
Act is plainly
402 of the
worded.
that “Section
trial,
of sentence.”
imposition
conviction
only during
Haag,
accord
823;
For the we and next or his counsel determining appellee, in erred behalf, antipsy- refuse the administration may on his friend case. Ac- circumstances of this medication under the chotic
521 court’s denial of the Com- reverse PCRA cordingly, we to take such appellee compelled be request monwealth’s that appellee direct the PCRA court order medication. We administered, antipsychotic if med- involuntarily necessary, him If such medication renders competent. ication to render court is directed to competent, hereby the PCRA appellee fact, in following: appellee, ascertain the whether wishes first, relief; and, if the to the first question PCRA answer affirmative, then, second, in the can assist in such relief. If pursuing antipsychotic counsel in the PCRA rendering appellee competent, does succeed Mrs. definitively court is directed determine whether Wat- If appellee’s son is a to serve as next friend. party suitable court determines that Mrs. should not PCRA Watson friend, appellee’s proceed serve as next then the court should petition to determine whether PCRA should be dismissed, in forth in procedure accordance with the set this mandate in Court’s Sam. for proceedings
Reversed and remanded consistent with this Opinion. SAYLOR, EAKIN join
Justices and McCAFFERY opinion. files a in dissenting opinion
Justice BAER which Justice joins. TODD BAER,
Justice dissеnt. in For the reasons in the developed my dissenting opinion Sam, 528, companion case of Commonwealth v. 597 Pa. 952 565, (Pa.2008), 2008 I respectfully A.2d WL 2853095 dissent in alleged governmental because interest this case fails to justify the substantial of the inmates’ interest liberty violation from The resulting compelled psychiatric medication. assert- ed interest governmental finality through pales comparison bringing alleged to the interest criminals to trial, an Supreme interest which the United States Court found to be sufficient in rare v. only cases Sell United (2003). States, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 197 U.S. *32 522 I affirm the trial court’s denial of the
Accordingly, would of compel to the medication inmates attempt Commonwealth’s against their will. case, however, in my
The
of
conclusion
this
consequence
Sam,
in
In
I
that the case
from that
Sam.
concluded
diverges
dismissal,
because the defendant did
should be remanded
contrast,
case,
In
in
petition.
of the
this
approve
PCRA
filed the
se.
actually
petition, pro
defendant Watson
PCRA
to
incompetent
he
found to be
Additionally, when was
mother as next friend.
appointed
the
the court
his
petition,
it
a
significant
provides
The
because
less
appointment
the
inherent in collateral
finality
intrusive
to obtain
alternative
in
the
Majority,
As discussed
the
United States
review.
in
that
to
com-
Supreme
required
prior
ordering
Court
Sell
in
of an individual’s
inter-
pelled
liberty
violation
alternative,
est,1
any
court must find that
less intrusive
“[t]he
are
the same
unlikely
substantially
treatments
achieve
Sell,
2174.
results.” See
539 U.S.
S.Ct.
Haag,
v.
Pa.
Although Majority Commonwealth for finality forced medication and Watson will allow relief, I conclude obtain benefits available any through already appointed can attained goals through those I that the next friend in this case. conclude Accordingly, necessary failed to demonstrate a element of test, I affirm the denial of forced medi- Sell and would cation. joins dissenting opinion.
Justice TODD this
952A.2d565 Pennsylvania, Appellant COMMONWEALTH
v. SAM, Appellee. Thavirak Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of 16,
Argued Oct. 2006. 11,
Resubmitted Jan. 2008.
Reargued April 2008. July
Decided 2008. counsel. notes The Commonwealth further when defense, identify Dr. not ing any Sadoff did adverse that agreed side effects from these newer medications Thus, they effects older have side than medications. fewer the PCRA court erred argues not restore finding that such medication “could and would not” that the PCRA court cited appellee’s competence, emphasizing this finding. no evidence to support In response, argues counsel that the PCRA “treatment could not finding court’s and/or com being sufficiently and would result the defendant