Comm. v. Romero, E., Aplt. (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-140-2001] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : EDWIN RIOS ROMERO, : : Appellant No. 315 CAP Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Criminal Division, entered 9/15/2000 at No. 1827/1995 denying the PCRA petition SUBMITTED: August 2, 2001 CONCURRING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: December 28, 2007 I join the majority opinion with the exception of the legal point raised by Justice Saylor s concurring and dissenting opinion. Specifically, I agree with Justice Saylor that Appellant may rely on Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) and Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), in support of his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate mitigating evidence as this court has clearly allowed such reliance in the past. See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion at 5-7 (pointing out that this court has previously rejected the majority s perspective regarding Williams and Wiggins in Commonwealth v. Hughes, 865 A.2d 761 (Pa. 2004)). Nevertheless, in this case, I join the result of the majority opinion on this issue because I agree that the quality of evidence that Appellant proffered in support of his claim of counsel s ineffectiveness for failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence was too weak to justify a new penalty phase hearing. Mr. Justice Baer joins this concurring opinion. [DOUBLE CLICK TO MODIFY FOOTER. Select text within brackets. Type journal #, district, & year] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.