Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID PHILLIPS (04/07/76)

decided: April 7, 1976.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DAVID PHILLIPS, APPELLANT (TWO CASES)



COUNSEL

Charles Lowenthal, Philadelphia, for appellant.

F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Carolyn Engle Temin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Jones, C. J., and Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ.

Author: Nix

[ 468 Pa. Page 401]

OPINION

Appellant David Phillips, after trial before a judge sitting without a jury, was convicted of murder of the first degree and carrying firearms on the public streets. Post-verdict motions were filed, argued and dismissed. Judgment of sentence of life imprisonment was entered on the murder conviction. This direct appeal followed.*fn1

Appellant asserts three allegations of error from his trial: (1) that he was mentally incompetent at the time of the trial, See, Commonwealth v. Davis, 459 Pa. 575, 330 A.2d 847 (1975); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 451 Pa. 483, 305 A.2d 890 (1973); (2) that he was mentally incompetent at the time of sentencing, See, Commonwealth ex rel. Hilberry v. Maroney, 424 Pa. 493, 227 A.2d 159 (1967); and (3) that the court erred in refusing to appoint a psychiatrist to evaluate appellant's mental state, See generally, Commonwealth v. Marshall, 456 Pa. 313, 318 A.2d 724 (1974).

Although the court below found that appellant was competent at trial and sentencing, we do not believe that the record provided a sufficient basis for the finding with reference to his mental condition at the time of

[ 468 Pa. Page 402]

    trial. After the trial and before sentencing, the court ordered that a pre-sentence investigation report be prepared and that a psychiatric examination be conducted. See Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1403. This was done to assist the court in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed and was not at the request of counsel for the defense. The psychiatric report revealed that Phillips was then laboring under a mental disability diagnosed as "Schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type in acute state". The report recommended that he should be immediately hospitalized for further evaluation and "intensive" treatment. This report was prepared eight days following the conclusion of the trial. Regrettably, the report did not address itself to the doctors' opinion as to Phillips' competency during trial.

In accordance with the recommendation, appellant was committed to the State Maximum Security Forensic Diagnostic Hospital at Holmesburg Prison for a period of 60 days. The report resulting from that hospitalization provided in pertinent part, the following diagnostic formulation:

"Personality Disorder -- Mixed Type with schizoid and antisocial features. This disorder is manifested by lack of emotional response, narcissism, little regard for others, ineffective functioning in social and educational areas, minimal ego strength, and little capacity to avoid being easily led by others. Although he may have shown some symptoms of an acute psychotic process in the past few months, his present mental status is somewhat improved and he does not appear to be overtly psychotic. It is possible that he is in partial remission from a schizophrenic illness, but that diagnosis cannot be made with certainty at this time."

Again the report failed to consider the question of the competency of appellant during trial. At the competency hearing, Dr. Norman C. Jablon, Clinical Director of the Holmesburg ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.