A former Clearfield man who is in prison after being found guilty of attempted murder in Hyde has failed to prove his lawyer was ineffective, according to a Pennsylvania Superior Court decision issued last week.

Although Robert Jeffery Bailor, 53, was found by a jury to be mentally ill, he is presently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution in Forest County, serving a term of 14 to 28 years.

He was accused on Aug. 24, 2020, of pursuing and stabbing a man getting out of his vehicle at his Hyde residence.

Charges indicate he stabbed the victim twice in the back of the neck and three times in the stomach before fleeing the scene.

The victim told police that his attacker was known as “Bobby,” but he knew of no reason why the incident occurred.

The victim was able to drive himself to a Clearfield hospital, where he underwent several surgeries.

Bailor was found guilty of attempted murder, aggravated assault, simple assault and terroristic threats.

Clearfield attorney Joseph A. Valenza, representing Bailor in a post-conviction appeal, argued before a three-judge panel of the Superior Court that the defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective; that he was not adequately prepared for trial; and that he failed to adequately cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.

A Superior Court panel that included Judges Deborah A. Kunselman, Megan Sullivan and Correale F. Stevens explained that a defense attorney’s performance initially is presumed to be “constitutionally adequate” and that the defendant has the burden of proving that his claim has “arguable merit”; that the defense counsel had “no reasonable strategy” in pursuing the defense; and that there is “a reasonable probability” that the outcome of the trial would have been different with the pursuit of another strategy.

Bailor, for instance, complained his trial attorney spent little time with him.

The Superior Court panel stated “mere shortness of time for a defendant to confer with his counsel before trial does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”

In reviewing the Bailor argument, Clearfield County Judge Fredric J. Ammerman, who presided over the trial and reviewed his appeal issues, indicated the defense counsel in his strategy did not focus on whether Bailor committed the stabbing, but on his mental health, all in an effort “to negate guilt.”

The defense strategy was based on competency and mental health evaluations of Bailor, Ammerman explained.

He found that Bailor was unable to establish that his trial counsel lacked a reasonable basis for his pretrial strategy.

He concluded Bailor failed to show the outcome of his trial would have been different had his counsel’s pretrial preparation been different.

The Superior Court panel concluded, “Our review of the (post-conviction) hearing transcript supports (Ammerman’s) conclusions.”

“The adequacy of trial counsel’s pre-trial preparation cannot be measured solely by the number of contacts he has with Bailor,” the Superior Court panel concluded.

As to Bailor’s claim his attorney inadequately questioned witnesses — particularly the victim — the trial court (Ammerman) pointed out the trial counsel did question the victim on alleged discrepancies in his testimony.

The panel concluded that Bailor was thus unable to prove his claims.

The opinion noted it took the jury only 20 minutes to find Bailor guilty of the charges.

After his sentencing, Bailor spent time in the Torrance State Hospital before his transfer to a state correctional facility.