Com. v. Walls, L. ( 2017 )

J-A23016-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LEON RAYMOND WALLS
Appellant No. 1488 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 13, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No: CP-02-CR-0007810-2014
BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 4, 2017
Appellant, Leon Raymond Walls, appeals from the August 13, 2015
judgment of sentence imposing ten to twenty years of incarceration after a
jury found Appellant guilty but mentally ill of attempted homicide, two
counts of aggravated assault, unlawful restraint, terroristic threats,
possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another
person.1 We affirm.
This case involves stabbings that occurred on March 25, 2013 on
Highland Avenue and in a Target department store in the East Liberty
neighborhood of Pittsburgh. The record reflects that Jobe Wright, Mike
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 2501, 2702, 2902, 2706, 907, 2705, respectively.
J-A23016-16
Turner, Roland Smith and Tyrique Walker were standing on Highland Avenue
when Appellant passed by and stabbed Wright. N.T. Trial, 6/2-4/15, at 68-
69, 88-89, 104-05. Appellant yelled, “he robbed me,” as he fled down the
sidewalk toward the nearby Target. Id. Turner and Wright pursued
Appellant by car after the stabbing, and Smith and Walker pursued him on
foot. Id. at 70, 90, 106. There was no prior relationship between Appellant
and Wright, Smith, Turner, or Walker. Id. at 71, 83-84.
Smith found Appellant in the bathroom of Target changing his clothes.
Id. at 107. Smith confronted Appellant about the stabbing, and Appellant
said to Smith, “You trying to rob me.” Id. at 108. Smith then left the
bathroom and went outside the store to await the arrival of the police. Id.
at 109-110. Meanwhile, Appellant encountered Turner and Wright in the
store. Id. at 70. Appellant, still brandishing a knife, threatened to kill
Turner. Id. at 72-73. Appellant hit Turner with a shopping cart and began
running through the store. Id. at 75-76. Turner handed the bat to Wright,
who pursued Appellant through the store. Id. at 93. Wright and Appellant
exchanged words, with Wright confronting Appellant about the stabbing and
Appellant yelling, “I’m not going to jail.” Id. at 94.
Sharon Meadows, mother of victim Allison Meadows, heard Appellant
yelling, “You stole my wallet.” Id. at 122, 139. Appellant made his way to
the cash registers, where he took a hold of 16-year-old Allison, who was
-2-
J-A23016-16
waiting in line with her mother and Chelsea Stokes.2 Id. at 124-26, 132.
Appellant yelled, “Y’all think I’m playing,” and “They’re robbing me.” Id. at
76, 95-96. Stokes testified that Appellant was also shouting, “Call the cops”
or “Call the police.” Id. at 140, 144. Appellant held Allison by the neck and
put the knife to her back and yelled, “I’m gonna stab her. I’m gonna stab
her.” Id. at 126.
Turner testified that Appellant stabbed Meadows twice and attempted
to stab her a third time but another bystander prevented him. Id. at 76, 79.
Wright testified that “some young kid” jumped over the counter when
Appellant stabbed Meadows. Id. at 97. Sharon Meadows and Chelsey
Stokes testified that the stabbing occurred just after the bystander
intervened. Id. at 128, 143. Turner claimed he was ten feet away from
Appellant and Meadows when the stabbings occurred. Id. at 77. After the
bystander intervened, Turner attempted to wrestle Appellant to the ground.
Id. at 80. Smith, who had returned to the store, and Wright also “rushed”
Appellant. Id. at 112. Unable to wrestle Appellant to the ground, Turner
used a humidifier to hit Appellant in the head. Id. at 80. Wright testified
that he hit Appellant with the bat several times. Id. at 98. Smith suffered
three cut fingers and lost the use of two of them. Id. at 115, 118.
____________________________________________
2
Stokes is the mother of Sharon’s grandson and Allison’s nephew. Sharon
and Allison were in town to visit Stokes’ five-year-old son, who underwent
transplant surgery in 2012. Id. at 132, 137-38.
-3-
J-A23016-16
City of Pittsburgh Police Officer Leroy Schrock responded to the scene,
observed the altercation among Appellant and the others, and ordered
everybody to stop. Id. at 147-48. Target security identified Appellant as
the person with the knife, and Officer Schrock ordered Appellant to roll onto
his belly. Id. at 147-48, 159. Appellant had a bewildered look in his eyes
and did not comply. Id. at 148, 158. Appellant did not make any
aggressive moves toward Officer Schrock. Id. at 158-59. When Appellant
did not comply with Office Schrock’s order to roll over, Officer Schrock used
pepper spray on Appellant and then tried to force Appellant onto his belly.
Id. at 148-49. Back up arrived and used a Taser on Appellant, after which
Officer Schrock was able to handcuff him. Id. at 149.
There is no evidence that Wright robbed Appellant before Appellant
stabbed him, nor is there any evidence that Wright and his companions were
attempting to rob Appellant when they pursued Appellant into Target. The
primary issue before us is whether Appellant, when he committed these
crimes, was legally insane and therefore incapable of forming criminal intent.
The Commonwealth arrested Appellant and charged him with three
counts of attempted homicide, five counts of aggravated assault, one count
each of unlawful restraint and false imprisonment, two counts of terroristic
threats, one count of possession of an instrument of crime, four counts of
-4-
J-A23016-16
recklessly endangering another person, and one count each of simple assault
and resisting arrest.3
On June 4, 2014, a jury found Appellant guilty but mentally ill of the
following offenses: attempted homicide of Meadows, aggravated assault of
Wright and Meadows, unlawful restraint and false imprisonment of Meadows,
terroristic threats toward Meadows and Turner, possession of an instrument
of crime, and recklessly endangering another person (Meadows). The jury
found Appellant not guilty by reason of insanity of the attempted homicide of
Wright and recklessly endangering another person (Wright).4
The jury found Appellant not guilty of attempted homicide of Walker,
aggravated assault of Walker, Turner, and Smith, recklessly endangering
another person (Walker and Smith), and resisting arrest.
On August 13, 2015, the trial court imposed an aggregate 10 to 20
years of incarceration, the mandatory minimum. Appellant filed timely post-
sentence motions one day later. The trial court denied the post-sentence
motions on August 28, 2015. This timely appeal followed.
____________________________________________
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 2501, 2702, 902, 903, 2706, 907, 2705, 2701, and
5104, respectively.
4
We observe that “[i]nconsistent verdicts are proper so long as the
evidence is sufficient to support the convictions that the jury has returned.”
Commonwealth v. Trill, 543 A.2d 1106, 1111 (Pa. Super. 1988) (holding
that it was permissible for a jury to find the defendant guilty of one offense
and guilty but mentally ill of another, where the offenses were committed on
the same day), appeal denied, 562 A.2d 826 (Pa. 1989). Appellant does not
challenge the consistency of the verdicts.
-5-
J-A23016-16
Appellant presents three questions for our review:
I. Did the Commonwealth present insufficient evidence to
convict [Appellant] on any count, as it failed to prove he
possessed the required intent to commit any offense?
II. Are the verdicts of guilty but mentally ill against the weight
of the evidence, as the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s
expert was based on evidence not in the record, namely
the disproven accusation that [Appellant] resisted arrest?
III. Is the statute governing the sentencing of those found
guilty but mentally ill, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9727,
unconstitutional, statutorily sanctioned cruel and unusual
punishment and a violation of due process?
Appellant’s Brief at 7.
We consider these arguments in turn. The following standard governs
our review of Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence:
When evaluating a sufficiency claim, our standard is
whether, viewing all the evidence and reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the factfinder
reasonably could have determined that each element of the
crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court
considers all the evidence admitted, without regard to any claim
that some of the evidence was wrongly allowed. We do not
weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations.
Moreover, any doubts concerning a defendant’s guilt were to be
resolved by the factfinder unless the evidence was so weak and
inconclusive that no probability of fact could be drawn from that
evidence.
Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 332 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal
denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011).
Appellant argues the evidence of his guilt is insufficient because he
was legally insane. As noted above, the jury found Appellant guilty but
mentally ill on numerous counts. Section 314 of the Crimes Code governs
-6-
J-A23016-16
the insanity defense, and distinguishes legal insanity from guilty but
mentally ill:
(a) General rule.--A person who timely offers a defense of
insanity in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure may
be found “guilty but mentally ill” at trial if the trier of facts finds,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty of an
offense, was mentally ill at the time of the commission of the
offense and was not legally insane at the time of the commission
of the offense.
(b) Plea of guilty but mentally ill.--A person who waives his
right to trial may plead guilty but mentally ill. No plea of guilty
but mentally ill may be accepted by the trial judge until he has
examined all reports prepared pursuant to the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, has held a hearing on the sole issue of the
defendant’s mental illness at which either party may present
evidence and is satisfied that the defendant was mentally ill at
the time of the offense to which the plea is entered. If the trial
judge refuses to accept a plea of guilty but mentally ill, the
defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea. A defendant
whose plea is not accepted by the court shall be entitled to a
jury trial, except that if a defendant subsequently waives his
right to a jury trial, the judge who presided at the hearing on
mental illness shall not preside at the trial.
(c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section and 42
Pa.C.S. § 9727 (relating to disposition of persons found guilty
but mentally ill):
(1) “Mentally ill.” One who as a result of mental disease or
defect, lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to
the requirements of the law.
(2) “Legal insanity.” At the time of the commission of the
act, the defendant was laboring under such a defect of
reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the
nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did
know it, that he did not know he was doing what was
wrong.
(d) Common law M’Naghten’s Rule preserved.--Nothing in
this section shall be deemed to repeal or otherwise abrogate the
-7-
J-A23016-16
common law defense of insanity (M’Naghten’s Rule) in effect in
this Commonwealth on the effective date of this section.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 314.
A defendant pleading an insanity defense bears the burden of proving
by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not know either the nature
and quality of the act he committed, or that what he was doing was wrong.
Commonwealth v. Sohmer, 546 A.2d 601, 604 (Pa. 1988); 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 315(a).
Mental illness under our Crimes Code will not be permitted
to eliminate the mens rea requirement for culpability for
otherwise criminal conduct unless the M'Naghten test is met.
Subsection 314(a) by its very terms accepts the fact that the
offender is guilty of the offense charged, which necessarily
implies that the mental illness did not preclude the mens rea
required by the offense. It is equally apparent from section
9727 that a finding of mentally ill was also not intended to
mitigate the punishment to be meted out for the commission of
the criminal act. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9727.[5] Equally as obvious is
____________________________________________
5
Section 9727 provides:
(a) Imposition of sentence.--A defendant found guilty but
mentally ill or whose plea of guilty but mentally ill is accepted
under the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 314 (relating to guilty but
mentally ill) may have any sentence imposed on him which may
lawfully be imposed on any defendant convicted of the same
offense. Before imposing sentence, the court shall hear
testimony and make a finding on the issue of whether the
defendant at the time of sentencing is severely mentally disabled
and in need of treatment pursuant to the provisions of the act of
July 9, 1976 (P.L. 817, No. 143), known as the “Mental Health
Procedures Act.”
(b) Treatment.--
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8-
J-A23016-16
that it does not create a distinct offense nor does it provide an
enhancement of an existing offense.
Id. at 606.
Appellant’s expert, Dr. Abhishek Jain, a forensic psychiatrist,
interviewed Appellant twice and reviewed relevant records. N.T. Trial, 6/2-
4/15, at 178. Dr. Jain concluded Appellant was schizophrenic with
borderline intellectual functioning. Id. at 179, 181. Appellant suffered from
delusions of paranoia, which are a “fixed false belief in things that are not
actually happening in reality.” Id. Appellant believed the sun and moon
were not real, and he would “try to make sense of various numbers and
predict if the world was real or not.” Id. at 179, 201. Appellant also
suffered from hallucinations, including hearing a voice say, “Hate! Hate!
Hate!” Id. at 180, 201. On the day in question, Appellant heard a voice
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
(1) An offender who is severely mentally disabled and in need of
treatment at the time of sentencing shall, consistent with
available resources, be provided such treatment as is
psychiatrically or psychologically indicated for his mental illness.
Treatment may be provided by the Bureau of Correction, by the
county or by the Department of Public Welfare in accordance
with the “Mental Health Procedures Act.”
(2) The cost for treatment of offenders found guilty but mentally
ill, committed to the custody of the Bureau of Correction and
transferred to a mental health facility, shall be borne by the
Commonwealth.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9727(a), (b).
-9-
J-A23016-16
say, “Hate! Hate! Hate! They are going to kill you.” Id. at 199. Dr. Jain did
not believe Appellant was feigning his symptoms. Id. at 184-88.
Appellant told Dr. Jain he did not remember the assault of Wright and
Allison Meadows. Id. at 195, 198. He remembered being in a dollar store
buying bug repellant before the assaults, and then he remembered waking
up in a pool of blood at Target. Id. at 195. On cross-examination, defense
counsel established that a behavior clinic report prepared shortly after
Appellant’s arrest indicated that Appellant affirmed that the stabbings
occurred. Id. at 211. Dr. Jain testified that it was difficult to determine
whether Appellant actually remembered the events in question or if he was
responding to what he had been told. Id.
Dr. Jain noted that, during the incident, Appellant asked people to call
police and claimed he was being robbed. Id. at 202-03, 206-07. Appellant
had no obvious motive to stab Wright, as the two did not know each other.
Id. at 203. Dr. Jain described the stabbing of Allison Meadows as follows:
But overall he was acting in a self-protective manner, and
this, again in my opinion, in the belief that he was being
harmed. Then when he grabbed Ms. Allison Meadows, again he
initially grabbed her as a shield. Again to me this was a
demonstration of him acting in a self-protective manner while he
is very paranoid, very delusional, very fearful. So he grabs her
as a shield in a self-protective manner and then only stabs her,
from my understanding, after he was grabbed from behind. So
he is in a highly agitated state. Then he gets grabbed from
behind and then impulsively, almost as a reaction, sudden
reaction, to being grabbed, then he stabs Ms. Meadows twice.
- 10 -
J-A23016-16
Id. at 205. Dr. Jain opined that Appellant “was most likely acting in a
manner that he did not think was wrong.” Id. at 208. Rather, Appellant
believed he was defending himself. Id. Dr. Jain opined that Appellant, in
light of his severe illness, did not know what he was doing was wrong. Id.
at 209, 218-19.
Dr. Bruce Wright, a psychiatrist, testified for the Commonwealth. Dr.
Wright interviewed Appellant once and reviewed relevant records. Id. at
257-58. Appellant’s statements to Dr. Wright were consistent with the
statements he gave to Dr. Jain. Id. at 258. Specifically, Appellant claimed
he went to a dollar store to buy bug spray and did not recall anything until
after stabbing Allison Meadows at Target. Id. Appellant told Dr. Wright he
obtained the knife because people in his hallucinations kept telling him he
would be attacked. Id. at 259, 265. Dr. Wright diagnosed Appellant with
schizophrenia. Id. at 260. On whether Appellant knew his actions were
wrong, Dr. Wright testified:
I was not—I am not able to say with a reasonable degree
of certainty that [Appellant] knew his actions were wrong. It is
my opinion that he lacked substantial capacity to understand the
wrongfulness of his actions and to conform his behavior to the
requirements of the law. So lacking substantial capacity is very
different than knowing what you are doing is wrong. Knowing is
absolute. You either know or you don’t know what you are
doing. It is my opinion because of the psychiatric illness he
lacked substantial capacity to know what he was doing was
wrong.
Id. at 261. Dr. Wright opined that Appellant’s request for someone to call
the police was not consistent with knowledge of wrongdoing. Id. at 262.
- 11 -
J-A23016-16
Appellant’s statement, “I’m not going to jail,” on the other hand, indicated
some knowledge of wrongdoing. Id. That statement, combined with
Appellant’s resistance of arrest were, according to Dr. Wright, “two very key
points that illustrate a part of him knew what he was doing was wrong.” Id.
at 263. Dr. Wright declined to speculate whether his testimony would have
been the same if Appellant had not resisted arrest. Id. at 267-68.
In summary, Dr. Jain testified that Appellant did not know what he
was doing was wrong, thus rendering him legally insane under § 314(c)(2).
Dr. Wright testified that Appellant lacked the substantial capacity to
understand the wrongfulness of his conduct, thus rendering him mentally ill
under § 314(c)(1), but capable of forming criminal intent. Appellant
acknowledges Dr. Wright’s testimony, but argues that “[i]n the interests of
criminal justice, this Honorable Court must consider ‘lacking substantial
capacity’ to do something and ‘not having the capacity’ to do that same
thing, as one in the same. This is a linguistic distinction without a practical
difference.” Appellant’s Brief at 31.
Appellant’s argument fails because it contradicts established
precedent. Put simply, a guilty but mentally ill conviction “does not negate
[an appellant’s] intent to commit a criminal act.” Commonwealth v.
Rabold, 920 A.2d 857, 859 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 855 A.2d 682, 701 (Pa. 1988)), affirmed, 951 A.2d 329 (Pa.
2008). In Commonwealth v. Trill, 543 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Super. 1988),
- 12 -
J-A23016-16
appeal denied, 562 A.2d 826 (Pa. 1989), this Court analyzed the distinction
between legally insane and mentally ill:
Mental illness and insanity are qualitatively separate
concepts. The two definitions do, however overlap. All
individuals who are legally insane are also mentally ill. But the
converse of the statement, that all persons who are mentally ill
are also insane, is false. The difference is not quantitative. In
other words, an extremely mentally ill individual may not be
legally insane. A high degree of mental illness does not destroy
mens rea. The difference is qualitative. Insanity definitions are
attempts to isolate the element of mens rea that may be present
in some illnesses but not in others. Because the two concepts
involve qualitatively separate elements, they are not likely to
cause undue confusion to juries.
Id. at 1128 (quoting Comment, Guilty But Mentally Ill: An Historical and
Constitutional Analysis, 53 Urban L.J. 471, 478 (1978)). More succinctly,
“[t]he mentally ill defendant in a murder case may exhibit only a limited
understanding that killing is generally agreed to be wrong; the legally insane
person has no idea whatsoever that killing is considered to be wrong.” Id.
at 1131 (Beck, J. concurring).
Furthermore, the Trill Court noted that it is within the jury’s province
to determine the credibility and weight of conflicting psychiatric testimony.
Id. at 1112; see also, Rabold, 920 A.2d at 860. Given the plain language
of § 314(c)(1), the case law interpreting that section, and Dr. Wright’s
testimony, we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence from
which the jury could reject Appellant’s insanity defense and find him guilty
but mentally ill.
- 13 -
J-A23016-16
Next, Appellant argues that the guilty but mentally ill verdicts are
against the weight of the evidence because Dr. Wright based his opinions on
his erroneous belief that Appellant resisted arrest.
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the
exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether
the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Because the
trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence
presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration
to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when
reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against
the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons
for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction
that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the
evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of
justice.
This does not mean that the exercise of discretion by the
trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial based
on a challenge to the weight of the evidence is unfettered. In
describing the limits of a trial court’s discretion, we have
explained:
The term “discretion” imports the exercise of judgment,
wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion within
the framework of the law, and is not exercised for the purpose of
giving effect to the will of the judge. Discretion must be
exercised on the foundation of reason, as opposed to prejudice,
personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary actions. Discretion is
abused where the course pursued represents not merely an error
of judgment, but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable
or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that
the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citations
omitted; emphasis in original).
As explained above, Appellant did not comply when Officer Schrock
ordered him to roll onto his belly. Officer Schrock used pepper spray on
- 14 -
J-A23016-16
Appellant and another officer used a Taser before Officer Schrock was able
to handcuff Appellant. Nonetheless, Officer Schrock testified that Appellant
did not physically resist police. The Commonwealth charged Appellant with
resisting arrest, but the jury found him not guilty.
Dr. Wright opined that Appellant had at least some capacity to
appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct because he stated “I’m not going
to jail” and because he resisted arrest. N.T. Trial, 6/2-4/15, at 262.
Appellant argues that his convictions of guilty but mentally ill, based largely
on Dr. Wright’s expert testimony, are against the weight of the evidence
because Dr. Wright incorrectly believed Appellant resisted arrest.
We reject Appellant’s argument for two reasons. First, Dr. Wright did
not testify that Appellant’s resistance of arrest was a necessary condition for
his opinion. When defense counsel pressed this point on cross examination,
Dr. Wright declined to testify that his conclusion would change if Appellant
had not resisted arrest. Dr. Wright’s other key point—that Appellant said,
“I’m not going to jail,” did not depend on whether Appellant resisted arrest.
Second, the record contains evidence that Appellant failed to comply with
Officer Schrock’s orders, and that pepper spray and a Taser were necessary
before Officer Schrock could handcuff Appellant. Even though the jury found
Appellant not guilty of resisting arrest, Dr. Wright could reasonably rely on
Appellant’s noncompliance with a police order in support of his opinion that
Appellant had at least some capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his
- 15 -
J-A23016-16
actions. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying a new trial on this basis.
Appellant’s final argument is that § 9727 is unconstitutional because it
permits cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant acknowledges that this
Court in Commonwealth v. Yasipour, 957 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2008)
held that § 9727 does not violate the state and federal constitutional
prohibitions of cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant invites us to
reconsider Yasipour because § 9727(b)(1) provides that a severely
mentally disabled defendant shall be provided treatment “consistent with
available resources,” and because no sufficient resources are available in this
case. Appellant’s Brief at 44 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9727(b)(1)). At the
sentencing hearing, the trial court stated:
I also want to state on the record that [defense counsel,
the prosecutor] and myself have all spent a lot of time in the last
week looking for and hoping to find an appropriate mental health
facility where [Appellant] can be treated.
It is my strong belief that [Appellant] is suffering from a
serious mental illness, was at the day of the crime and still is.
We have run up against a wall. If sent to Torrance, it would be,
it is a very short-term stay. Although I am going to recommend
that he be placed in a mental health facility, or in a facility that
is a correctional facility with mental health sections, or pods, or
whatever they call them.
N.T. Sentencing, 8/13/15, at 3. After Appellant spoke on his own behalf, the
trial court responded:
I understand and I believe you. I believe you were
mentally ill on that date that this occurred. And I think you are
still mentally ill.
- 16 -
J-A23016-16
Unfortunately, it’s very difficult for me to find someplace
appropriate for you to go. The budgeting, and I know this isn’t
your fault, but they have just taken away so many resources,
and what happens is that people that are mentally ill, since they
have nowhere else to go, end up in jail. I’m sorry for your
situation.
And I don’t think you meant to do it. I believe that.
Id. at 4-5.
We are sympathetic to Appellant’s plight, but we are bound by the
precedential opinions of our Supreme Court and prior panels of this Court.6
As Appellant acknowledges, the Yasipour Court concluded that § 9727 does
not violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment found in the
Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 13 of
the Pennsylvania Constitution. Furthermore, applicable statutory and case
law makes clear that a finding of guilty but mentally ill does not negate a
defendant’s intent, nor does it entitle the defendant to receive a different
sentence than any other person convicted of the same offense. 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9727(a); Sohmer, 546 A.2d at 604; Santiago, 855 A.2d at 701; Rabold,
920 A.2d at 859. Any change to the existing law must come from our
Supreme Court and/or the General Assembly.
Finally, Appellant argues that § 9727 violates due process because it
provides no means by which an offender can challenge the sufficiency of
____________________________________________
6
Furthermore, the power to create treatment resources and appropriate the
necessary funding rests with our General Assembly.
- 17 -
J-A23016-16
available treatment resources prior to being stripped of his liberty.
Appellant’s Brief at 51. Appellant raised this argument for the first time in
his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Thus, he has waived it. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)
(“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal.”). In any event, this court has noted that after the
trial court finds an offender in need of treatment and commits him to the
Bureau of Corrections, as the trial court did here, it becomes the Bureau of
Corrections’ responsibility to formulate an adequate treatment plan.
Commonwealth v. Sematis, 555 A.2d 1347,1349-50 (Pa. Super. 1989).
The adequacy of the Bureau of Corrections’ treatment plan is not properly
before us on review of the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge Strassburger joins this memorandum.
Judge Lazarus files a concurring statement in which Judge
Strassburger joins.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/4/2017
- 18 -