Opinion ID: 4529083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dooley’s GBMI Status and Grievances Seeking

Text: D Stability Code The parties’ conflict turns in part on a disagreement, reflected throughout the grievance process, about whether Dooley should be considered a GBMI inmate. Although the outcome of that factual dispute does not dispose of the questions before us, the issue warrants some explanation for the sake of context. In 2002, Dooley was tried for five counts of attempted murder, five counts of aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of a crime, and reckless endangerment of another person, and the jury found him GBMI on all charges. Dooley has cited the jury’s GBMI finding in grievances requesting the D Stability Code designation as well as his Complaint. On August 13, 2017, Dooley filed a grievance complaining that he 4 was “not being treated as a D Code,” despite having been found guilty but mentally ill by the jury. App. at 149. He noted that he had previously written staff about the issue. He submitted a second grievance on August 24, in which he claimed that an official told him in an annual review that, because the jury’s verdict had been changed, he was not GBMI and therefore was not a D Stability Code. Dooley filed the grievance to object to this determination, contending the jury’s GBMI finding should have been credited. Although there is no dispute that the jury found Dooley GBMI, the DOC Officials repeatedly represented to Dooley that his court documents no longer identified him as GBMI, and that he therefore should not be labeled D Stability Code. It is unclear what the sentencing judge determined or what evaluations were performed, as that aspect of the record has not been provided to us. The only portion of the sentencing transcript before us consists of three pages that Dooley attached to his Complaint, in which defense counsel briefly referenced the jury’s GBMI verdict, and the sentencing court noted that Dooley “needs some psychiatric assistance,” before going on to state Dooley’s sentence without any specific reference to mental health treatment. App. at 62–63. Otherwise, all we know is what the various DOC officials have represented as noted below. On August 29, DOC Official Richard Goss denied the first grievance. Goss wrote: I have reviewed your claims in this grievance and we have discussed this at length previously. I have also spent considerable time researching 5 this for you. You are not GBMI nor a D stability Code. You were found Guilty But Mentally Ill by the jury. At that time, the judge entered a temporary sentencing order pending a Psychiatric evaluation to address the GBMI. The result of the evaluation did not support the GBMI designation and it was deleted from the final order. This grievance has no merit and is denied. App. at 151. On appeal, DOC Official Kevin Kauffman upheld this decision. He reiterated that, although a jury found Dooley GBMI, the “judge entered a temporary sentencing order pending a psychiatric evaluation to address the GBMI verdict. The evaluation did not support the GBMI designation and it was deleted from the final order.” App. at 152. He then concluded, “you are not a stability D inmate” and recommended that Dooley address any concerns to the sentencing judge. App. at 152. Dooley appealed to the Chief Grievance Officer, Dorina Varner, who upheld the previous decisions. Her response followed the recommendation of the Acting Director of the Psychology Office, who noted that “Inmate Dooley’s court documents were reviewed and found to not identify him as ‘Guilty but Mentally Ill.’” App. at 141. Chief Grievance Officer Varner’s decision read: It has been found that your court documents were reviewed and found to not identify you as 6 “Guilty but Mentally Ill”. Because you do not like or agree with the interpretation of your court documents does not give any further merit to your claims. If you do not agree with the court documents, this should be addressed with the Judge and the court. Therefore, this office upholds the responses provided to you and your requested relief is denied. App. at 140. The denials of Dooley’s grievance and appeals seeking D Stability Code classification were thus consistently premised on his purported lack of GBMI status. The District Court seems to have credited the DOC Officials’ assertion that the GBMI designation was “deleted.” App. at 5. Dooley, however, maintains that his GBMI status continued to apply and supported his claim that he was entitled to the more intensive mental health treatment offered to D Stability Code inmates. On appeal, the DOC Officials do not argue that the sentencing court removed the GBMI finding altogether; they merely assert that the court found Dooley was not severely mentally disabled under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9727(a). Given the foregoing facts, Dooley’s contention that he retained the GBMI designation, at least to some extent, is not baseless. If, as the DOC Officials contend, a jury found Dooley GBMI and a sentencing judge concluded that Dooley was not severely mentally disabled, that would not have eliminated his GBMI status. Under current DOC policy, it would have placed him in Category II of GBMI inmates, which would have required that he be placed on the D Roster and that he subsequently receive regular psychiatric evaluation. See Pa. DOC Reg. § 13.8.1(2)(J)(1)(b)(2), (3). Although the current 7 DOC policies may not have been in effect at the time of Dooley’s initial incarceration, they support the view that, even if the sentencing judge found him not severely mentally disabled, his GBMI verdict did not disappear or lose all significance.1