J
- S41020
- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. ANTHONY VELAZQUEZ Appellant No. 2206 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 10 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP
- 36
- CR
- 0003824
- 2008 CP
- 36
- CR
- 0003826
- 2008 CP
- 36
- CR
- 0005949
- 2009
BEFORE: ALLEN, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J. * MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 24, 2015 Anthony Velazquez appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County that dismissed his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 1 and granted his counsel’s motion to withdraw. After careful review, we affirm based on the opinion of the Honorable Dennis E. Reinaker. On April 13, 2010, Velazquez pled guilty to one count of burglary, one count of harassment, one count of aggravated assault, two counts of terroristic threats, and fifteen counts of intimidation of a witness. On June

____________________________________________
* Retired Seni or Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541
- 9546.J
- S41020
- 15

- 2
-

17, 2010, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 13 to 26 years’ incarceration. Velazquez filed an appeal to this Court, which affirmed his judgment of sentence on June 27, 2011. Velazquez’s counsel did not file a petition for allowance of appeal. However, following reinstatement of his appellate rights, he filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which the Suprem e Court denied on October 30, 2013. On March 3, 2014, Velazquez filed a pro se PCRA petition, and on March 5, 2014, the court appointed Christopher Lyden, Esquire, to represent Velazquez and directed that an amended petition be filed within 45 days. Inst ead, on April 2, 2014, counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). Attached to the motion was a copy of a letter to Velazquez in which counsel explained that the six issues raised in Velazquez’s pro se petition had no merit, and that after an independent review of the record, he found no other meritorious claims. On May 13, 2014, the court issued a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Cr im.P. 907, which included an independent analysis based on its review of “the pro se motion, the guilty plea and sentencing transcripts and the other documentation contained in the file.” Notice of Intent to Dismiss, 5/13/14, at 4. On June 2, 2014, Velaz quez filed aJ
- S41020
- 15

- 3
-

response. By order filed June 10, 2014, the court dismissed the PCRA petition and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. On November 21, 2014, the court granted Velazquez’s request to file an appeal nunc pro tunc and on December 15, 2014, he filed a timely notice of appeal. In response to an order from the trial court, Velazquez filed a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). The trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion
on February 17, 2015. On appeal, Velazquez raises the following issues, verbatim , for our review: 1. Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion in accepting PCRA counsel’s defective “no
- merit” letter, and for agreeing with PCRA counsel that the pro se PCRA petition is meritless, when [Velazquez] was deprived of the opportunity of legally trained counsel to advance his position in acceptable legal terms, amounting to his first timely filed PCRA petition being effectively uncounseled, when PCRA counsel failed to participate meaningfully by failing to modify and amend the inarticulately drafted pro se PCRA petition, failed to properly review the entire certified record in this case, failed to communicate with [Velazquez] and for failing to investigate [Velazquez ’s] claims and contentions first, before filing the defective “no
- merit” letter, despite the presence of claims of arguable merit, in violation of [Velazquez’s] right to counsel on his first timely filed PCRA petition? 2. Whether the PCRA court abused its dis cretion in accepting PCRA counsel’s defective “no
- merit” letter, and for agreeing with PCRA counsel that the pro se PCRA petition is meritless, and for denying and dismissing the pro se PCRA petition without a hearing, despite the presence of claims of arg uable merit, in that guilty plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for advising [Velazquez] to plead guilty to aggravated assault
– law enforcement officer, 18 Pa.C.S.A.J
- S41020
- 15

- 4
- § 2702(a)(3), when there was no factual basis to establish the crime, causing [Velazquez] to enter into an unknowing, unintelligent and involuntary pleas of guilty, in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitutio n? 3. Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion in accepting PCRA counsel’s defective “no
- merit” letter, and for agreeing with PCRA counsel that the pro se PCRA petition is meritless, and for denying and dismissing the pro se PCRA petition without a hearin g, despite the presence of claims of arguable merit, in that guilty plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object at the guilty plea proceedings when the court erred in failing to hold a hearing on [Velazquez’s] mental illne ss at the time of the offenses to which the guilty
- but mentally ill plea was entered and/or the guilty
- but
- mentally ill aspects of the plea, under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 314 and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9727(a), constituting a defective plea of guilty
- but mentally ill, in v iolation of [Velazquez’s] right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution? Appellant’s Brief, at xi. On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, this Court must det ermine whether the post
- conviction court’s findings were supported by the record and whether the court’s order is otherwise free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Blackwell , 647 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 1994). The findings of the PCRA court will not be disturb ed unless they have no support in the record. Id. The Turner

/ Finley decisions provide the manner for post
conviction counsel to withdraw from representation. The holdings of those cases mandate an independent review of the record by competent counsel bef ore a PCRA court . . . can authorize an attorney’s withdrawal. The necessary independent review requires counsel to file a “no
- merit” letter detailing the nature and extent of his review and list each issue the petitionerJ
- S41020
- 15

- 5
-

wishes to have examined, explaini ng why those issues are meritless. The PCRA court . . . then must conduct its own independent evaluation of the record and agree with counsel that the petition is without merit. Commonwealth v. Rykard , 55 A.3d 1177, 1184 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). After careful review of the parties’ briefs, the record and the relevant law, we agree with President Judge Reinaker’s analysis and affirm on the basis of his opinion. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of President Judge Reinaker’s decisi on in the event of further proceedings. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/24/2015r·;
.,-- 

### ; 

# .., -;:'J :;;i:: ci 

### -n

APPENDIX "A" 1 18 Pa

. C.S.A. §3502(a). .2 J 8,"Pa.C.S.A §2709(a)(I ). 3 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4952(a)(3). 4 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2702(a)(3). 5 "18 Pa.C;S.A. ~2706(a)(l ). 6 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4952(a)(3). 

### Pennsylvania. On March 23, 2012 the Defendant filed a pro se 

### Motion for Post~Convktio1e ':t=. ( " c-') ~ Collateral Relief and 

### was appointed counsel, PCRA Counsel filed an Amended Petiti~ ong

. ~ 

# - .('11 -1 ?J ('") -0 Q :y.: 

## .'.'.i.: -I

~·

~ 

### The Defendant's counsel did not seek an allowance of appeal in the Supreme Court of September 

### 20, 2010 but on June 27, 2011 the Superior Court affirmed 

### the judgment of sentence. The Defendant tiled a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on to 26 years' incarceration. intimidation 

### of a witness. 6 

### On June 17, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to 

### an aggregate of 13 assault, 4 

### and two counts of terroristic threats;" and on docket 

### number 5949-2009, 13 counts of 

### qo~ket number 3-824.:.2008, two COWltS 

### of intimidatlon of a 'witness/ one 

### count of aggravated · his 

### sentence in the_ above captioned 

### matter. The Defendant entered a guilty plea on April 13, 2010 on docket number 3826-2008 for 

### one count of'burglary' and one 

### count of'harassmentr' 

### on

. . . . ' 

### TI1e Defendant) Anthony 

### Velazquez, has filed a Direct 

### Appeal to 

### the Superior Court from 

### BY: REINA.KER, J. 

### February 17, 2015 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION ANTHONY VELAZQUEZ Nos. 3824-2008, 3826-2008, 5949-2009



### v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM2

according to the requirements established by Commonwealth v, 

### Finelr, 550 f1..2d 213 (Pa. 1988)

• • • • I ' • • .... • • ' • • • . • PCRA hearing. However, the Court properly dismissed the Defendant's PCRA Petition asserts that the Court abused its discretion when it deprived him of the opportunity to have a the opportunity to have counsel advance his position for appeal. In his final three claims he Counsel's No-Merit Letter and that in accepting the No-Merit Letter, the Court deprived him of PCRA. The Defendant asserts that the PCRA court abused its discretion in accepting his PCRA In his appeal the Defendant identifies four issues involving the Court's denial of his Commonwealth has filed its Answer. appeal and was directed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and he has done so. The PCRA Court dismissed the petition. On December 15, 2014 the Defendant filed a notice of information in support of his claims of relief under the PCRA. Therefore, on June 10, 20 i 4 the The Court reviewed the Defendant's response and concluded that he did not provide any relevant Defendant was given leave to respond and the Defendant timely filed a response on June 2, 2014, hearing pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1) on May 13, 2014. The A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 

### 1998). 'I11c Court sent notice 

### that it intended to dismiss his motion without a "no-merit" letter and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel pursuant to Commonwealth v. Flnley, 550 leave to 

### file an amended petition if deemed appropriate. On April 2, 2014, Mr. Lyden filed 

### a Conviction Relief Act. Christopher P. Lyden, Esquire was appointed to represent him and given Next, on 

### March 3, 2014, the Defendant filed a second prose motion pursuant to the Post October 30, 2013. the Supreme Court of 

### Pennsylvania, which was filed on September 27, 2013) was denied on Defendant's Motion was granted on December 13, 2012. The Defendant's allowance of appeal to August 20, 2012 and a PCRA hearing was held on December 7, 2012. An Order granting, in 

### Part Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM3

No-Merit Letter, and second after the Court mailed its Rule 907 Notice. The Court therefore the Defendant time to respond on numerous occasions; first, when his PCRA counsel filed his properly complied by conquctin~ its own independent review of the record and ultimately agreed 

### with the PCRA Counsel that the Motion was meritless, Both PCRA Counsel and the Court gave his PCRA Counsel explained that the Petitioner had the light to proceed prose. The Court also explained why the issues were rneritless in detail. This letter was also sent to the Defendant and PCRA Counsel filed a No-Merit Letter in which he discussed the Defendant's claims and Here, both PCRA Counsel and this Court properly followed the procedures required

.. 603 Pa. 1, 981 A.2d 875 (2009). Com. v. Friend, 2006 PA Super 70, 

### ii 8, 896 A.2d 607, 615 (2006) abrogated by Com. v. Pitts ,

11 1) As part of an application to withdraw as counsel, PCRA counsel must attach to the application a "no-merit" letter, ,. 2) PCRA counsel must, in the "no-merit" letter, list each claim the petitioner wishes to have reviewed, and detail the nature and extent of counsel's review of the merits of each of those claims,

. 3) PCRA counsel must set forth in the "no

- merit" letter an explanation of why the petitioner's issues are meritless, 4) PCRA counsel must contemporaneously forward to the petitioner a copy of the application to withdraw, which must include (i) a copy of both the "no-merit" letter, and (ii) a statement advising the PCRA petitioner that, in the event the trial court grants the application of counsel to withdraw, the petitioner has the right to proceed pro se, 12 or with the assistance 'of privately retained counsel; 5) the court must conduct its own independent review of the record in the light of thePCRA petition and the issues set forth therein, as well as of the contents of the petition of PCRA counsel to withdraw; and · . · 6) the court must agree with counsel that the petition is meritless." Commonwealth v. Friend states that: court and PCRA Counsel must take before a Motion to Withdraw may be granted. and S:::ommonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607 (Pa.Super. 2006). There are six requirements that a Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM4 BYTHECO U RT: 1 1 

### M8fDENN\S RE\N~KE~ • ~@ R ES , JUDGE DENNIS E. REI NAKER PRESIDENT JUDG E F ebru ary 17 , 20 15 l 9 25 (b) stat ement ar e meritl ess . Accordingly, I con c lud e the g rounds id e ntified by theDefendant in his Pa. R.A.P. Defendant's Petition in its Rule 907 N o tice i ss ued on May 13, 2014. refers and i n corporate s in this Op i nion, its s pecifi c opinion s o n the m e ritl ess claim s o f th e Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AMN ••. 

## '-0 (.") r· r-11 ::0 

### :.x 0 

# .,, 0 C) 

## §, M C) c:



### . ?q . . . . 

## ~- ~ for dismissing the Petition without a hearing." ~ommonwealth v.

_ _fuiton, 876 A.2d 3~, 3~

~ ~ (Pa. 2002). ~ -< 

### ~ w at 215. Stated in another way, the Court must provide "an independent expression of its reasons" . withdraw) and .the Petition may be dismissed without.further proceedings, See Finley 5 50 A.2d agrees with oounsel that the Petition is meritless, only then can counsel be permitted 

### to job of the PCR.1\ 

### Court to conduct a thorough and independent review of the record. If the 

### Court Petitioner complains of and counsel 's explanation as to why each issue is meritless. It is then the the nature and extent of counsel's review of the case. The letter must also list each issue that the requirements must be met. First, counsel must submit a "no-merit" letter. This letter must detail In order for PCRA counsel to be permitted to withdraw from the case, certain material fact. No purpose would be served .by any further proceedings. conclude that the Defendant's motion is meritless and there are no genuine issues concerning any (Pa.Super. 

### 1998). For the reasons set 

### forth below 

### and after 

### a review of the entire record, I letter and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 an amended petition if deemed appropriate. On 

### April 2, 2014, Mr. Lyden filed a "no-merit" Relief Act Christophe!' P. Lyden, Esquire was 

### appointed to represent him and given leave 

### to file On March 3, 2014, the Defendant filed a prose 

### motion pursuant 

### to the Post 

### Conviction Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 NOTICE 

### ANTHONY VELAZQUEZ Nos. 3824-2008, 3826-2008, 5949·2009



### v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM2

. . 

### q uo ti ng Co m !J}O Jl' Y ~ fil.!! 1 v . Lambert , 568 A .2 d 3 46, 7 9 7 A. 2 d 232 , 24 3 ( P a . 20 01 .)

. Counse l then

. . a r eas onab l e pro bab ili ty th at th e o ut c om e o f th e p r oceed in gs w o u ld h ave b een d iff ere n t. (!g. . the u nd erly i n g cl aim is o f ar g u abl e me rit, 2 ) co un se l s a c ti ons w ere u nrea son ab l e, and 3 ) th e re i s

. . . . M erit Lette r p . 1 ). Co un se l th en d e tail s th e s t andar d th at mus t be m e t 

### in provin g s uch a claim: 1) or de r to avoid w aiv e r un de r th e PCRA h e may claim that hi s prior c o u n se l w a s in eff e cti ve . (N o- · 

### dir ec t ap p ea l t o th e Pe nn sy l v ani a S u pe rior C ou rt
. 

### Co un se l f urth er a d v i ses the D efe nd an t that i n cl aim s i n th e low e r 

### c ou rt
. A s s u c h , th e De fe nd ant' s c laims w e re w aiv e d 

### an d not r e vi ew abl e on F irst , P CRA co unsel explains th at th ere i s n o r ecor d o f obj ec tion rais in g the D e fen dan t's prior 

### to b e in g se nt e nced. (8) y ear s e n t en c e t o at th e p r eli min ary h earin g, and 6)-h e did n ot h ave a "Mental Health Hearing» J e nnifer M oyer , d i d no t t estify at the p r elimin ary h earin g> 5) he was pro mi sed a fo ur ( 4 ) to e i g h t th e . victim , an d 3) did not commit an a ggra vated as sault. 4) The Defe n dan t cl ai m s th at th e vi c ti m , g u il ty to. He ar gu es th at he 1) did not com mit a bur g lary) 2 ) d i d n ot send thr eat e nin g l e tter s t o P C RA

. Th e Defendant e ss e ntially a ssert s his inno c e n ce p e rt ai nin g to th e crime s h e pl e n d e d and e x p 

### fai n s why e ach i s su e lac ks m e rit. Th e De fe ndant a s s e rt s s i x 

### clai m s for re lief un d er th e l n th e rem ain i n g portion of th e letter, c o uns e l a d dres s e s all six of th e De fe ndant's i ss ue s have addres s ed. (No-Merit Letter p.1

- 2). and quotes the secti on s of the D e fend ant's Mo tion where he d esc ribe s the i ss ue s h e wis he s to Motion

. (N o -Meri t L e tter p . 1 ). Next> coun s el documen ts the c a se ' s entire p r oce dur al his t o ry Counsel revi e wed do c ument s in the file, the 

### guilty p lea and s enten ci ng transc ript s , an d the pro s e additional le g al research a ddres s ing the i ss ues raised in the p etitio n. (N o -M e rit Letter p. 1 )

. Counsel stat e s in his letter that he performed a revi e w of the petition a s well as c o ndu c ted First, the Cou rt will review coun s el ' s "no-m e rit " l e tter for c ompli an ce w i th Finley. Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AMSecond, PCRA counsel explains that claims one, two , and three lack merit. Counsel cites

to the Guilty Plea transcript and states that this Court summarized the facts and circumstances of each criminal charge and the Defendant acknowledged each offense. (No-Merit Letter p.2). As such, claims for relief under the PCRA are not cognizable when the record contradicts them. 

### In short, counsel states that since the Defendant admitted to conunitting these offenses on the record he cannot now claim innocence, Id. Third, with regard to claims four and five counsel points out that claims of ineffectiveness at a preliminary hearing are not cognizable under the PCRJ

... @., 

### citing Commonwealth v. Lyons, 568 A.2d 1266 (1989)). 'Finally, PCRA counsel explains that with regard to count six, at the time of the guilty plea> the question of whether the plea would be entered as 

### "Guilty but Mentally Ill" was ieft open and the Commonwealth indicated it wished to challenge this status. (No Merit Letter p.2). However, at the sentencing hearing the Commonwealth withdrew this challenge. As a result counsel avers that the Defendant's plea was entered as Guilty but Mentally Ill. Id. Counsel concludes that since this did not prejudice the Defendant this argument has no merit. 

### TI1e Court 

### is satisfied that PCRA counsel sufficiently complied with 

### the mandates of ·Finlev·in its "No-Merit'vLetter. 

### Nextthe Court must per.form.an.independentreviewof.the. entire record. Counsel informed the Defendant in the '.'No-Me1it" .Letter that should he have any questions h~ was to contact counsel's office. Further, the Defendant was notified of counsel's intent to withdraw

.. (No Merit Letter p.2). TI1e Court did not receive any documentation or explains that the Defendant plead guilty; therefore, allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with a guilty plea will serve as the basis of relief only if the ineffectiveness causes the petitioner
to enter 

### an involuntary or unknowing 

### plea (No-Merit Letter 

### p.2 citing Commonwealth 

### v. Allen, 557 Pa. 132 (1999)). Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AMcorrespondence from the Defendant. Therefore, the Court reviewed the pro se Motion, the guilty

plea and sentencing transcripts and the other documentation contained in the file. The Court's analysis follows. The law presumes that counse] was effective and the Defendant has the burden of proving ineffectiveness. Conunomvealtl1 v. Brooks, 839 A.2d 245, 248 (Pa. 2003). Therefore, to prevail on an ineffectiveness 

### claim, the Defendant must demonstrate that: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel's 

### performance lacked a reasonable basis; and (3) counsel's performance caused him prejudice. Copunonwealth v. Miller, 746 A.2d 592 (Pa. 2000). Additionally, to be eligible for relief, the petitioner must both plead and prove his case. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9543(a). The Defendant fails to present 

### any claim of"arguable merit" in his Motion. The Defendant first argues that he is entitled to relief because heis innocent of the charges he pleaded guilty to. As PCRA counsel indicated, this claim is not meritorious. The record shows that the Defendant tendered a knowing and voluntary guilty plea The Defendant 

### entered a guilty plea 

### on April 13, 2010 on docket numbers 3826-2008, 3824~2008, 

### and 5949- 2009. At the time of the 

### guilty plea, the Defendant indicated to the Court that he understood he was present to plead guilty to seventeen charges on three different dockets and understood what the 

### maximum penalties were under the law. (Notes of Testimony Guilty Plea, hereinafter "N.T.GP.,, 4-9). In addition, the Defendant indicated to the Court that be understood what elements the Commonwealth would have to prove for each charge and noted that he discussed



### ·· this with 

### trial counsel. '(N;T :GP. 4-9). Finally, the Defendant acknowledgedthathesigned the guilty plea slip, guilty plea coII~quy and admitted to the factual basis for the plea. (N.T.GP. 9). These circumstances indicate that the Defendant's plea was both knowing and voluntary , Claims for relief 

### ate not cognizable when the record contradicts· them: Commonwealth v: Alle11, 557 Pa. Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AMexpectations don't vitiate guilty pleas.

_

pleaded guilty to does not amount to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Disappointed him. As such, the Defendant's realization that he was unhappy with the sentence he ultimately 

### erroneous advice; and-therefore; 

### the Defendant has· failed to proveany prejudice resulting against As such, the Defendant has 

### failed to prove that his guilty plea was induced by Trial Counsel's as to what my sentence might be in return for your plea?" 

## 14. The Defendant responded "No." Id. 11 ). The Defendant responded ''No. H Id. The Court then asked "Has anyone made any promises anyone made any promises or threats to you in return for your guilty plea here today?" (N.T.GP. the Defendant's sole decision to plead guilty. The court specifically asked the Defendant: "has involuntary er unknowing plea. Conunonwealth 

# v. Allen, 557 Pa. 132 (1999). Ultimately, 

### it was serve as the basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness causes the petitioner to enter an alternatives. Id. Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty plea will Such a claim cannot succeed through a hindsight comparison of the chosen strategy and other effectuate the defendant's interests. Commonwealth v. Miller, 819 A.2d 504 , 517 (Pa. 2002). deemed constitutionally effective if the course chosen had some reasonable basis designed to 

### meritless, Where matters of strategy and tactics 

### are concerned, counsel's assistance is 

### generally promised a four ( 4) to eight (8) 

### year sentence at the preliminary hearing. These claims are his preliminary hearing. The Defendant also argues that he is entitled to relief because he was Next, Defendant argues he is entitled to relief because Jennifer Moyer did not testify 

### at the Defendant's claim has no arguable merit. pleaded guilty to lacks merit. The Court followed proper procedure 

### in this case and, therefore,

. . aforementioned offenses. As such, the Defendant's claim that he is innocent of everything he

. 135 (1999). The record clearly indicates that the Defendant admitted to committing the Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM6 

### . -DE!\fNIS E." RElNAKER JUDGE MAY 13, 2014 

### /sfDENNIS REINAKER

JUDGE 

### BY THE COURT: 

### f certify this document to be filed in 

## the Lancaster County Office of th~,~~'~,~~ of ~he_ Courts. 

# {!_-

~,, ~w~·'':-. 

## ~~~~·~:ti-:!~~ 

# JJ 

# ~~~·#~·.,~ i1:~1pli:~~

I ~ 

# \\;~,}J Joshua G. Parsons · '%-~;~~-:> Clerk of lhe Courts ~:,~~T: Copies to.

. Anthony Velazquez, SCI Fayette, Box 9999, Labelle, 

## PA 15450~0999

Christoph e r P. Lyden, Esquire District Attorney's 

### Office

. with any relevant information or documentation for review. The Defendant is granted leave until June 2, 2014 to respond to this notice and provide the Court Notice is given to the Defendant that I intend to dismiss his motion without a hearing. was no prejudice attributed to the defendant; therefore, the Defendant's claim is without merit. "1'1.T.S.~, 29). As such, the need for au 

### evaluation prior 

### lo sentencing was 

### unnecessary . There appropriate place to house Mr. Velazquez." (Notes of Testimony Sentencing, hereinafter pursuing that anymore and I will allow the state correctional institution to determine an to Norristown State Hospital or a state correctional institution. Tue Commonwealth is not Commonwealth would be making some effort 

### to dispute whether Mr. Velazquez would be sent Attorney Robert Smulktis indicated the following: 

### "at the guilty plea we made mention that the Subsequently, at sentencing the Commonwealth 

### withdrew this challenge. Assistant District Velazquez for 

### his amenability to treatment" in either 

### of two separate facilities. (N.T.GP. 

### 14). Commonwealth indicated it 

### was "seeking to have 

### a mental health professional evaluate 

### Mr. challenge the Defendant's request to enter a plea as 

### "Guilty but Mentally Ill." (N.T.GP. 3). The on April I 3) 2010; the Commonwealth requested a brief mental health hearing in order to afforded a "Mental Health Hearing" prior to being sentenced. During the Defendant's guilty plea Finally, the Defendant argues that he is entitled to relief because he should have been Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM... ( wt. Inmate Mail·· Pn Dopartment of Corrections cc. Graig William Stedman, Esguire Lancaster County District Attorney; Enclosures. ( s) In conclusion, I thank you 

### in advance for your attention and 9onsideration in these and other matters. Please acknowledge receipt of the enclosed seven (7) copies of the foregoing Brief for Appellant for filing in the above captioned ap~eal. Dear 

### Mr. Seletyn: RE: Commonwealth v. Anthony Velazquez, superior Court No. 220~ MDA 2014 Trial Court Docket No: CP-36-CR-0003824-2008, CP-36-CR-0003826-2008, CP-36-CR-0005949-2009 

### MIDDLE 

### APR O 6 2015 ANTHONY VELAZQUEZ #JR-3094 SCI-FAYETTE BOX 9999 LABELLE, PA 15450-0999 

## .{\t)r~\ _i_, 2015 

### \ JOSEPH D. S~LETYN, ESQUIRE - PROTHONOTARY SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA - MIDDLE DlSTRICT OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 601 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, SUITE 1600 HARRISBURG, PA 17106-2435 Rec.f'hmrl In Superior Court Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM