Com. v. Alberto, H.

J. S04038/18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : HERNAND ALBERTO, : No. 1159 MDA 2017 : Appellant : Appeal from the PCRA Order, June 27, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No. CP-36-CR-0006074-2013 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., DUBOW, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2018 Hernand Alberto appeals from the June 27, 2017 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County that dismissed his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 (“PCRA”). We affirm. The PCRA court set forth the following: [Appellant] was charged with allegedly having committed the offense of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance [(heroin)], pursuant to 35 [P.S.] § 780-113(a)(30) [(“PWID”)]. [Appellant] entered a guilty plea to said offense on April 14, 2016. At such time, [appellant] was represented by Cory J. Miller, Esquire. [Appellant] was sentenced on April 14, 2016, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, to serve a period of incarceration of not less than six nor more than twenty-three months, to be followed by two years of probation on a split sentence basis. No direct appeal was filed by [appellant]. J. S04038/18 [Appellant] filed a timely [m]otion for [PCRA] [r]elief on November 4, 2016. The Commonwealth filed an [a]nswer thereto on December 15, 2016. Accordingly, by Order dated December 15, 2016, the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to be held on February 9, 2017. Subsequently, by Order dated December 16, 2016, the court rescheduled said hearing for March 17, 2017. Said evidentiary hearing was held before the court and legal memorandums were submitted by the parties. PCRA court opinion and order, 6/27/17 at 1. The record reflects that on June 27, 2017, the PCRA court entered an order denying appellant PCRA relief. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this court. The PCRA court then ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely complied. In response, and in order to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the PCRA court entered an order on August 9, 2017, wherein it attached its June 27, 2017 opinion that sets forth its reasons for denying appellant PCRA relief. Appellant raises the following issue for our review: Under Padilla v. Kentucky, [559 U.S. 356 (2010),] an attorney is constitutionally ineffective when he fails to provide his noncitizen client with accurate advice about the clear immigration consequences of a guilty plea. In Pennsylvania, a PWID conviction results in mandatory deportation for a noncitizen. Did the PCRA court err in refusing to grant [appellant] relief where his attorney failed to inform him that a guilty plea to PWID heroin would expose him to automatic deportation? Appellant’s brief at 4. -2- J. S04038/18 In PCRA appeals, our scope of review “is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals