937 F.3d 151
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Anthony Velazquez, with a history of mental illness, attempted to enter Pennsylvania’s guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) plea, which requires the trial judge to review reports, hold a hearing on mental illness at the time of the offense, and decide whether to accept the plea.
- Velazquez waived trial to enter a GBMI plea, but the judge never reviewed the required reports, never held the GBMI hearing, and never made the statutory finding; instead the record reflects a plain guilty plea.
- Trial counsel agreed to the judge’s plan to defer the GBMI process, failed to obtain medical records or secure the hearing, did not object when the plea was recorded as a regular guilty plea, and raised no GBMI-based argument on direct appeal.
- Velazquez raised the defective-procedure and ineffective-assistance claim in a PCRA petition; PCRA counsel and the state courts misconstrued the claim as asserting only a sentencing/hearing omission and concluded no prejudice.
- Velazquez filed a § 2254 habeas petition; the District Court found the claim not cognizable in habeas. On appeal, the Third Circuit granted relief on the GBMI claim, concluding counsel was ineffective and Velazquez was prejudiced, and directed vacatur of the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a habeas court has jurisdiction over a claim that a guilty plea was the wrong plea because procedural requirements for a GBMI plea were not followed | Velazquez: invalid guilty plea; habeas proper because relief would alter the fact of conviction and restore the statutory process | Commonwealth/District Ct: claim seeks treatment (not a change to conviction/sentence) and thus is not cognizable in habeas | Court: Habeas jurisdiction exists; vacating the conviction restores the process and implicates the validity of the plea, within §2254 scope |
| Whether Velazquez exhausted his state remedies on the GBMI claim | Velazquez: pro se and PCRA filings put state courts on notice of the §314(b) procedural defect and ineffective assistance | Commonwealth: claim was not fairly presented; state courts reasonably treated it as a sentencing/hearing issue only | Court: Claim was exhausted; state courts misconstrued it and therefore did not adjudicate the merits; federal review de novo |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to object to the defective GBMI plea process was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland | Velazquez: counsel failed to know and enforce mandatory GBMI procedures, did not secure records or hearings, and allowed the plea to be recorded incorrectly | Commonwealth: counsel’s actions reflected acceptance of the plea process as handled; any error did not prejudice Velazquez because GBMI would not reduce sentence | Court: Counsel’s ignorance of fundamental law and failure to act was unreasonable performance — Strickland deficient |
| Whether Velazquez was prejudiced under Strickland even though GBMI would not have reduced his sentence | Velazquez: prejudice shown because he lost the statutory process/opportunity to obtain GBMI treatment; under process-based prejudice cases, he need only show a reasonable probability he would have availed himself of the process | Commonwealth: prejudice requires showing the alternate plea would have provided a less severe sentence or a favorable result | Court: Applies process-focused framework (Hill/Lafler lineage and binding cases); prejudice established by reasonable probability Velazquez would have pursued GBMI process, so relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance framework)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice inquiry in plea context)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (remedy restoring opportunity to accept plea; process-based relief)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (plea-offer-related rights and remedies)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (prejudice shown by loss of decision to reject plea when counsel misadvised about collateral consequences)
- Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (prejudice where counsel’s deficiency caused loss of an entire proceeding)
- Vickers v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, 858 F.3d 841 (Third Circuit adopting process-based prejudice standard)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (habeas proper for challenges to the validity of confinement)