Commonwealth v. Flor
Decision Date | 22 September 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 771 CAP,771 CAP |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Robert Anthony FLOR, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Hunter Stuart Labovitz, Esq., Peter Konrad Williams, Esq., Federal Community Defender Office, Eastern District of PA, for Appellant.
Ronald Eisenberg, Esq., Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, Philadelphia, Jill Marie Graziano, Esq., Bucks County District Attorney's Office, for Appellee.
Justice Mundy delivers the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III(G), VI, and VII, in which Chief Justice Baer, Justice Saylor, and Justice Dougherty join; Justice Wecht delivers the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II and III of his expression, in which Justices Saylor, Todd, and Donohue join. Justice Mundy announces the judgment of the Court with respect to all other issues.
In this capital case, Appellant, Robert Flor, appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County denying his first, timely petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1
On October 23, 2006, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the first-degree murder of Officer Brian Gregg, of the Newtown Borough Police Department. He further entered pleas nolo contendere to various other charges in connection with the events of September 29, 2005.2
In preparation for the penalty phase, counsel for Appellant retained and consulted with a number of experts to evaluate, ascertain, and report on potential mitigation factors.3 Specifically, counsel attempted to prove that Appellant was under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance; Appellant's capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired; and any other evidence of mitigation concerning the character and record of Appellant and the circumstances of the offense, referred to often as the "catch-all" mitigator. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(2), (3), and (8). In support of those mitigating factors, Appellant offered evidence to demonstrate he had brain damage, mental impairments
, emotional disturbances, impairments caused or exacerbated by alcohol and drug abuse, and a family upbringing marked by abuse and neglect. See
Flor , 998 A.2d at 626. In addition to a number of Appellant's family members testifying on his behalf, and of particular relevance to his first claim, Appellant offered expert testimony which this Court previously summarized as follows:
, severe without psychotic features; bipolar disorder, manifesting predominantly as depression; dementia ; personality change due to brain damage (also known as organic personality syndrome) of the labile, disinhibitive, and aggressive type; post-traumatic stress disorder, related to various childhood traumas; and personality disorder, not otherwise specified. All the experts recognized Appellant's long history of alcohol and drug abuse, and agreed that he exhibited borderline intellectual functions. In addition, the experts found several events to have been significant to Appellant's state of mind at the time of Officer Gregg's murder, i.e., Appellant's loss of the custody of his young daughter, his domestic dispute with the child's mother, his drinking of alcohol, and his arrest. In the opinion of the three defense experts, on the day of Officer Gregg's murder, Appellant was acting under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance and was substantially unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, due to some combination of mental illness, intoxication and long-term substance abuse, and recent stressful experiences. N.T., 11/14/06, at 28–29, 128–29; N.T., 11/16/06, at 39–41. Each expert reached these conclusions from his distinct perspective.
at the time of the incident in question, as triggered by the removal of his daughter by Children and Youth Services, a few weeks prior, and severe fighting, dysfunction with his daughter's mother." N.T., 11/14/06, at 20.
Dr. Voskanian opined that, at the time of Officer Gregg's murder, Appellant was suffering from bipolar disorder and from alcohol and cocaine dependence, and in addition was acutely intoxicated. N.T., 11/14/06, at 83. Dr. Voskanian determined that Appellant's bipolar disorder manifested predominantly as depression, and he suggested multiple causes, including his genetic background, his traumatizing upbringing, his substance abuse, and/or his head injuries. Id. at 119–20. Finally, in Dr. Voskanian's view, Id. at 128.
Dr. Tepper testified regarding Appellant's long history of treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and dependence, beginning in 1992, and then continuing in March 1999, from November 2002 to February 2003, in April 2004, and in February 2005. Finally, on September 20, 2005, just nine days before Officer Gregg's murder, Appellant began drug and alcohol treatment as part of a program to regain custody of his daughter. N.T., 11/16/06, at 16–23. Dr. Tepper also focused on Appellant's poor problem-solving skills. Specifically, he testified as follows: Id. at 26–27; see also
id. at 34 () . With regard to Appellant's emotional functioning, Dr. Tepper opined that Appellant's "cumulative history of developmental interferences [from his childhood] ... really disabled him from later developing a strong kind of sense of himself and ability and confidence." Id. at 29. Finally, Dr. Tepper testified that Appellant had difficulty with "impulse control," which rendered him at times unable to control himself. Id. at 37–41. On the day of Officer Gregg's murder, Dr. Tepper opined, Appellant was behaving in an "impulsive" way, Id. at 36.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Divalentino
...trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state postconviction proceeding." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b). Commonwealth v. Flor, 259 A.3d 891, 902 (Pa. 2021). Regarding a claim that counsel was It is well-established that to succeed on a claim asserting the of ineffective assis......
-
Commonwealth v. Rizor
...are to be provided "great deference[,]" and indeed, they are "one of the primary reasons PCRA hearings are held in the first place[.]" Id. at 910-911 (citing Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, (Pa. 2009)). Moreover, we must conduct our review in the light most favorable to the prevailin......
-
Commonwealth v. Cardenas-Torres
...determinations can be made[.]" Commonwealth. v. Johnson , 966 A.2d 523, 539 (Pa. 2009) (citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Flor , 259 A.3d 891, 910-11 (Pa. 2021).8 At the time of the PCRA hearing, Appellant was being held in Massachusetts because he indicated that the county jail ......
-
Commonwealth v. Cardenas-Torres
... ... Indeed, one of the primary reasons PCRA ... hearings are held in the first place is so that credibility ... determinations can be made[.]" Commonwealth. v ... Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 539 (Pa. 2009) (citations ... omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Flor, 259 A.3d ... 891, 910-11 (Pa. 2021) ... [8] At the time of the PCRA hearing, ... Appellant was being held in Massachusetts because he ... indicated that the county jail in Pennsylvania had closed but ... he also stated he was there on an immigration detainer ... ...