2003 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-14-2003

DelValle v. Ward

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 00-2471

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"DelValle v. Ward" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 657.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/657
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2471

___________

JOHN DEL VALLE

Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM WARD, Chairperson PA Board of Probation and Parole;

MICHAEL FISHER, Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania

___________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civil No. 99-cv-01720)

District Judge: The Honorable Malcolm Muir

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 16, 2002

BEFORE: NYGAARD, ALITO, and McKEE, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: April 14, 2003)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________
1. Petitioner’s brief actually states two issues for review. They are, verbatim: 

1. Is not the issue presented for this court’s review properly before this

court, having been timely raised and adjudicated on the merits in the state

court?

2. Did not the trial court violate Del Valle’s right to due process by

excluding evidence of involuntary intoxication, which evidence would have

negated any criminal intent, an essential element of the offenses charged? 

2

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

The District Court denied Appellant Del Valle’s amended petition for writ of

habeas corpus. The issue before us is whether the trial court erred by excluding defenseproffered evidence of involuntary intoxication.1

 We conclude that it did not and will

affirm.

The history of this case is well known to counsel, the parties, and the Court. 

Inasmuch as we are writing only for the parties herein, we will recapitulate neither the

extensive facts nor the procedure that preceded the conviction and sentencing therein.

It is sufficient to note that this matter was initially assigned to Magistrate

Judge Blewitt, who recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. 

Appellant objected to the report of the Magistrate Judge. The District Judge made de novo

review of all of those portions of the report to which there were objections. Appellant had

raised the same issues in a motion for post-conviction relief in state court, which was

denied by the trial court and affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The

Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur. 
Both the Magistrate Judge and the District Court thoroughly reviewed and

discussed Appellant’s argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an

insanity defense based upon involuntary intoxication. The District Court concluded that

neither the facts of record, nor the law, demonstrated that trial counsel’s performance was

deficient in any way. We agree. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that there is no

Due Process right to assert an insanity defense in a criminal prosecution. See Medina v.

California, 505 U.S. 437, 449 (1992). Therefore, there is similarly no clearly established

federal right to present an insanity defense here based on the effects of prescription drugs

on the Appellant. 

The record fully supports the multiple conclusions of the state court, of the

Magistrate Judge, and finally of the District Court. We will affirm.