J-S41020-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 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 Act1and 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 Senior 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 Supreme 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. 

Instead, 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.Crim.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, Velazquez filed a 
J-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 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 hearing, despite the presence of claims of arguable 

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 Constitution?

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 hearing, 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 illness 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 violation 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 determine 

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 disturbed unless they have no support 

in the record. Id.

The Turner/Finley decisions provide the manner for postconviction counsel to withdraw from representation. The 

holdings of those cases mandate an independent review of the 

record by competent counsel before 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 petitioner 
J-S41020-15

- 5 -

wishes to have examined, explaining 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 decision in the event of further proceedings.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/24/2015
r·; 

.,-- 

; .., 

-;:'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 

v. Nos. 3824-2008, 3826-2008, 5949-2009 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM
2 

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 AM
3 

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, 

111) 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 AM
4 

BYTHECOURT: 11 

M8fDENN\S RE\N~KE~ 

• ~@RES, JUDGE 

DENNIS E. REINAKER 

PRESIDENT JUDGE 

February 17, 2015 

l 925(b) statement are meritless. 

Accordingly, I conclude the grounds identified by theDefendant in his Pa. R.A.P. 

Defendant's Petition in its Rule 907 Notice issued on May 13, 2014. 

refers and incorporates in this Opinion, its specific opinions on the meritless claims of the 

Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM
N 

••. '-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 

v. Nos. 3824-2008, 3826-2008, 5949·2009 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM
2 

. . 

quoting Com!J}OJl'Y~fil.!!1 v. Lambert, 568 A.2d 346, 797 A.2d 232, 243 (Pa. 2001.). Counsel then 

. . 

a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. (!g. 

.the underlying claim is of arguable merit, 2) counsels actions were unreasonable, and 3) there is 

. . . . 

Merit Letter p.1 ). Counsel then details the standard that must be met in proving such a claim: 1) 

order to avoid waiver under the PCRA he may claim that his prior counsel was ineffective. (No-· 

direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Counsel further advises the Defendant that in 

claims in the lower court. As such, the Defendant's claims were waived and not reviewable on 

First, PCRA counsel explains that there is no record of objection raising the Defendant's 

prior to being sentenced. 

(8) year sentence to at the preliminary hearing, and 6)-he did not have a "Mental Health Hearing» 

Jennifer Moyer, did not testify at the preliminary hearing> 5) he was promised a four (4) to eight 

the. victim, and 3) did not commit an aggravated assault. 4) The Defendant claims that the victim, 

guilty to. He argues that he 1) did not commit a burglary) 2) did not send threatening letters to 

PCRA. The Defendant essentially asserts his innocence pertaining to the crimes he plended 

and exp fains why each issue lacks merit. The Defendant asserts six claims for relief under the 

ln the remaining portion of the letter, counsel addresses all six of the Defendant's issues 

have addressed. (No-Merit Letter p.1-2). 

and quotes the sections of the Defendant's Motion where he describes the issues he wishes to 

Motion. (No-Merit Letter p. 1 ). Next> counsel documents the case's entire procedural history 

Counsel reviewed documents in the file, the guilty plea and sentencing transcripts, and the pro se 

additional legal research addressing the issues raised in the petition. (No-Merit Letter p. 1 ). 

Counsel states in his letter that he performed a review of the petition as well as conducted 

First, the Court will review counsel's "no-merit" letter for compliance with Finley. 

Circulated 07/15/2015 09:47 AM
Second, 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 AM
correspondence 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 AM
expectations 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 AM
6 

. -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 

Christopher 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 

ANTHONY VELAZQUEZ APR O 6 2015 

#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