PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-3176 _____________ ANTHONY VELAZQUEZ Appellant v. SUPERINTENDENT FAYETTE SCI; DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANCASTER COUNTY; ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. Action No. 5-15-cv-5177) District Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith ______________ Argued June 27, 2019 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES, and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges. (Filed: September 3, 2019) ______________ Rosemary Auge [ARGUED] Arianna J. Freeman Federal Community Defender Eastern District of Pennsylvania Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 601 Walnut Street The Curtis Center, Suite 540 West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Travis S. Anderson [ARGUED] Lancaster County Office of District Attorney 50 North Duke Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Counsel for Defendants-Appellees ______________ OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Actions speak louder than words, but both speak. Our criminal justice system thus presumes that a person’s actions and words are altogether meaningful—that is, some degree of intentionality is inherent to them. This presumption developed at a time when we were far less cognizant of the varied ways in which mental illness may influence conduct and speech. In fact, our collective system would only recognize the role of mental illness in the exceedingly rare instance in which such 2 illnesses rendered a defendant incapable of intentionality. A number of states have since made efforts to reflect a more developed understanding. This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas case stems from one such effort by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In exchange for a waiver of the right to a jury trial, Pennsylvania law permits a defendant to enter a special guilty plea, formally known as guilty but mentally ill (“GBMI”). If the plea is accepted, the defendant has the opportunity to receive mental health treatment while serving her sentence. The rationale is that providing treatment where needed will reduce the likelihood that a defendant recidivates, which is in her long-term interest and protects the public from the attendant harms and costs of a repeat offender. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 612 A.2d 426, 429–30 (Pa. 1992). The waiver and entry of the plea are not enough to secure this opportunity, however. This is because a trial judge is not permitted to accept a GBMI plea unless she examines certain reports, holds a hearing on the sole issue of the defendant’s mental illness, and determines that the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the offense. If the result of this process is that the trial judge does not accept the GBMI plea, the defendant’s right to trial is returned, and she may choose to exercise it. Appellant Anthony Velazquez was charged with numerous offenses arising out of two sets of incidents: one involving his paramour, and the other involving a corrections officer. He had a history of mental illness, so he tried to enter a GBMI plea. The GBMI plea was not accepted. The trial judge did not examine the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals