Shanamaly Blackshire, a 37-year-old mother who was convicted by a jury of charges of trespassing in a gated community in Rio Rico, was sentenced to seven years in prison last month at a trial in Santa Cruz County Superior Court. I was.
The sentence handed down by Judge Thomas Fink comes after a complex and somewhat unusual criminal case. She adamantly claimed to own the property she had invaded.
“Under the United States, I am the owner of (property),” Blackshire calmly said at a sentencing hearing on Feb. 10.
Court records show Blackshire first broke into the property in 2021, claiming the federal government “gave” her the home after her arrest.
“MS. Blackshire makes many other bizarre and delusional statements,” said her former attorney, James Miller, in an attempt to expedite a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant early in the case. wrote in the motion to
Despite Miller’s recommendation that Blackshire undergo a psychiatric evaluation, she did not. That’s because she refused to speak to a mental health professional, according to court documents.
The case continued with strange twists and turns.
After refusing to cooperate with two defense attorneys, Blackshire chose to defend himself. Later, during her custody, she repeatedly refused to appear at her own trial.
Fink said he spoke with lawyers at the trial in January and determined that Blackshire was eligible to be prosecuted. Court proceedings continuedleading to the jury’s conviction and Blackshire’s seven-year sentence.
Blackshire’s time in the local court system is far from over. Her jury found her guilty on several charges, including her theft and resisting arrest, and another sentence is expected in the Superior Court on March 27.
Her testimony in this case is rather limited, as Blackshire did not attend her own trial. However, in an interview with her Sheriff’s Department detective, Blackshire admitted to breaking into her home. She told detectives that she used a handsaw and wire cutters to gain access to her residence, and that she slept in one of her homes, where she consumed a bottle of wine she could find. Did.
However, in that same interview, Blackshire told detectives that she owned the property and had federal documents to prove it.
The detective, who testified at trial earlier this month, said he believed the documents presented by Blackshire were printed by her from the Internet.
“As far as I know, she never got the property,” he said.
According to court files, Blackshire also filed a typed document titled “Private Property Deed,” which did not appear to contain an official seal or signature and was not on record within the county assessor’s office. did not match The document also incorrectly identified the homes as belonging to “Rio Rica County” instead of Rio Rico or Santa Cruz County.
Federal court documents show that Blackshire filed for bankruptcy in 2020 and later listed her address as one of the properties he allegedly robbed in Rio Rico.
It is not clear why Blackshire continued to claim ownership of the Rio Rico home. Additionally, the rightful owners of the property testified that Blackshire had broken into their homes.
One property owner even testified that he was back at the ranch with a few friends in February 2022 when he saw Blackshire leave the house.
“She claimed to own the house,” a property owner testified at a trial in January.
When the case passed the Nogales Court of Justice, Blackshire’s first court-appointed attorney, Miller, filed a motion to vacate the preliminary hearing. In the same motion, he requested a client mental health evaluation.
In a criminal trial in Arizona, any party may recommend a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether the defendant is mentally fit to stand trial. The county court system has tried to do just that in the Blackshire case – many times.
But Blackshire reportedly avoided participating in a remote interview with a psychiatrist, according to minutes filed with the judicial court last April. He refused to meet with a doctor,” the document said.
A similar scenario played out two months later, according to another minutes.
“The court informs defendant that it must proceed with her case.
The same minutes show that the participant took the exam three times. According to the entry, magistrate Emilio Velázquez ruled that Blackshire waived his right to be evaluated.
Psychiatric evaluation can play an essential role in criminal cases. If the defendant is deemed incapable of standing trial, the court process may be further delayed or the defendant may be hospitalized rather than imprisoned.
“Mental illness can affect both your ability to stand trial and your liability for crimes,” said Erin Sachs, Ph.D., professor of law, psychology, psychiatry, and behavioral sciences at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. .
“That’s almost impossible to prove with public testimony,” Sachs added.
In other words, Saks said in an NI interview last month that determining a defendant’s mental state almost always requires the participation of a psychiatric professional.
But what if that individual refuses to be evaluated? And what if a judge or lawyer, rather than a mental health professional, is tasked with determining another individual’s mental Are there any such risks?
Judges “are not mental health experts,” Sachs said.
However, Blackshire’s refusal to answer questions from psychiatrists created a difficult situation, she added.
“What should we do?” she said. “That’s a good question.”
If the defendant refuses to speak to a psychiatrist, mental health professionals can try to gather information about the defendant from people who know him, Sachs said.
“The rater collects ancillary evidence,” Sachs said. “What were they like before they were decompensated? How were they able to function? How did their family, friends and colleagues view them at the time?”
It is not clear whether the evaluators attempted that route in the Blackshire case. And that method can be imprecise, he noted, Saks.
During Blackshire’s final sentencing, one person took the podium to talk about her background and personality. it’s her mother. However, the woman made no mention of the attempted psychiatric examination of her and appeared to agree somewhat with her daughter’s account.
Esther Blackshire said, “I just want to say I feel like this is overkill. ‘She’s never had a problem. I’m not just saying that because she’s my child.'”
During the Feb. 10 sentencing of his first conviction at trial, Fink appeared to be considering probation options in Blackshire. and implied that he would try to enter the house again.
In the end, Fink sentenced her to prison.
“If I release you, put you on probation, and exercise that option as sentencing judge, my understanding is that … you will continue to claim ownership of these properties,” Fink said. said shortly before his decision.
“Shouldn’t I?” Blackshire replied.
