Opinion ID: 3025999
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Blair Affidavit

Text: Fourth, and finally, Taylor offers the expert testimony of Dr. Blair, who also met Taylor for the first time nearly seven years after he pleaded guilty. Like Dr. Dudley, Dr. Blair diagnosed Taylor with longstanding borderline personality disorder. Contrary to Dr. Elyan’s, Mr. Briercheck’s, and Dr. Sadoff’s psychiatric evaluations conducted in 1991, Blair opines that Taylor “remained suicidal throughout the trial proceedings in late 1991 and early 1992.” (App. at 374.) In Blair’s opinion, Taylor’s “waivers were a passive way of committing suicide and were the product of his mental confusion, disorganization and depression rather than rational thinking.” (App. at 374.) Blair concludes from these observations that Taylor’s waivers were not “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent,” but her focus is entirely on Taylor’s potentially disordered motivation for seeking the death penalty. Thus, although she uses the terms “knowing and voluntary,” the substance of her proposed testimony assesses Taylor’s competency—his “ability to understand the proceedings” in 1991—not whether he actually did understand the “significance and consequences” of his decisions and whether they were uncoerced. See Godinez, 509 U.S. at 401 n.12. In short, Taylor’s proffered evidence sheds no new light on whether his plea and other waivers were knowing and voluntary. The District Court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on the knowing and voluntary character of the plea or waivers was 50 therefore not an abuse of discretion.25 See Landrigan, 127 S. Ct. at 1940. E. Taylor’s Remaining Guilt-Phase Waiver Arguments Taylor’s remaining arguments challenge the validity of his waivers based on the state court record as it currently stands. First, Taylor argues that the trial court’s failure to advise him of his potential defenses to first-degree murder invalidates his plea and waiver of defenses. Putting aside the fact that Taylor did acknowledge his understanding of the range of punishments for lesser degrees of homicide in his written waiver, the record shows that he chose to plead guilty after the court informed him of all lesser degrees of culpability, and the elements that the Commonwealth was required to prove for each. Moreover, Taylor’s discussions with Mr. Briercheck, Dr. Sadoff, his counsel, and the trial court, show that he was well aware that the death penalty was a possible consequence of a first degree murder conviction. Federal law requires no more detailed colloquy than what Taylor received. See United States v. Thomas, 389 F.3d 424 (3d Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, 545 U.S. 1125 (2005) (stating, in the context of a federal criminal trial, that defendants do not have a right to be “advised of possible defenses, such as voluntary intoxication, during [a] plea colloquy”); United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 573-74 (1989) (“Relinquishment derives not from any inquiry into a defendant’s subjective understanding of the range of potential defenses, but from the admissions necessarily made upon entry of a voluntary plea of guilty”). Where, as here, the defendant fully “understands the nature of the right [being waived] 25 We are not suggesting that mental health evidence is never relevant to whether a plea is knowing and voluntary, rather, we reach our conclusion, here, because this particular mental health evidence—while it uses the words “knowing and voluntary”—is clearly focused on Taylor’s competence, and does not raise questions about Taylor’s waivers under the standards set in Boykin, Godinez, VonMoltke, or any other relevant federal law. 51 and how it would apply in general in the circumstances,” he may knowingly and intelligently waive that right “even though [he] may not know the specific detailed consequences of invoking it.” Ruiz, 536 U.S. at 629. Second, though we agree with Taylor that a pre-printed waiver form alone does not satisfy Boykin’s requirements, the form here—which Taylor reviewed with the assistance of counsel—was supplemented with an adequate oral colloquy. Third, considering the first PCRA court’s finding that Taylor instructed counsel not to present any testimony at the degree-of-guilt hearing, counsel’s in-court statement waiving defenses to first degree murder clearly represented Taylor’s knowing and voluntary choice. The record shows that Taylor apprehended the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, the possibility of the death penalty and “all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter,” yet he repeatedly and clearly insisted on his right to plead guilty and not to present any testimony. See Peppers, 302 F.3d at 135 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because he was competent to make those decisions, his private motivation does not undermine their validity under federal law. In sum, an evidentiary hearing on the knowing and voluntary character of Taylor’s guilty plea and related waivers is not warranted. The current record—including the mental health evidence from 1991—fully supports the District Court’s conclusion that Taylor appreciated the significance of his plea, despite his depression, grave remorse, and other mental deficiencies. With full information and understanding, Taylor repeatedly and clearly indicated his desire to plead guilty and waive his rights. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s decision that these waivers were knowing and voluntary. F. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Guilty Plea and Waiver of Related Rights (Claim 5) Taylor argues, next, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that his waivers were knowing and voluntary. 52 (Taylor Br. at 56-58.) This argument is belied by the record, which shows that trial counsel repeatedly and unambiguously explained to Taylor the consequences of waiving his rights, and that Taylor repeatedly and unambiguously expressed his desire to waive them. Taylor’s argument that counsel should not have permitted him to make any decisions because of his incompetence has already been addressed. Based on our review of the record, and adopting the District Court’s well-reasoned discussion of this issue, counsel’s performance with respect to Taylor’s guilty plea was not constitutionally deficient under Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88.