official has a corresponding duty, and no other adequate and appropriate remedy at law exists. Fagan, 41 A.3d at 818. Moreover, this Court has explained that mandamus can compel the performance of an official duty, “even where the existence and scope of such duties must be found and defined in the course of the mandamus action itself.” Delaware River Port Auth. v. Thornburgh, 508 Pa. 11, 493 A.2d 1351, 1355 (1985). First, I conclude that, when viewed in the proper light, the amended complaint contains sufficient facts to demonstrate that Appellants have a clear legal right. Specifically, it is indisputable that criminal defendants are constitutionally enti- tied to effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685-87, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Appellants’ complaint avers facts which, if
recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that the statutory right to counsel at a civil commitment hearing implicitly includes the right to the effective assistance of that counsel holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel holding a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel during a plea process recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel