J-S84002-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : EDWIN G. CASTILLO MELO : : Appellant : No. 831 MDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order April 17, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0001776-2015 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MARCH 21, 2018 Appellant, Edwin G. Castillo Melo, appeals from the April 17, 2017 order denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. The PCRA court provided the background in this matter as follows: On April 16, 2015, [Appellant] was charged with two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, one count of criminal use of communication facility, possession of controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. These charges resulted from sales of heroin made by [Appellant] to a confidential informant on April 15, 2015 and April 16, 2015 in the City of Hazleton. [Appellant] pled guilty to two counts of delivery of a controlled substance[, 35 P.S. § 780–113(a)(30),] on December 4, 2015. Sentencing took place on February 19, 2016. [Appellant] received concurrent sentences of twenty-four months in the county intermediate punishment program with first six months being served on house arrest. J-S84002-17 [Appellant] filed no post-sentence motions or appeal. [On July 14], 2016, [Appellant] filed a [timely] Motion for Post- Conviction Collateral Relief. PCRA Court Memorandum, 4/17/17, at unnumbered 1. In an order filed on April 17, 2017, the PCRA court denied Appellant’s PCRA petition. On May 16, 2017, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On July 12, 2017, the PCRA court filed a statement in lieu of opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) and attached a copy of its April 17, 2017 memorandum as support for its order denying Appellant’s PCRA petition. On appeal, Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred when it denied his PCRA petition. Specifically, Appellant, who is not a United States citizen, alleges plea counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of the consequences that entering guilty pleas would have on his immigration status. Appellant’s Brief at 4. Appellant claims that his guilty pleas were involuntary due to the incomplete information provided by counsel, and Appellant would not have pleaded guilty had he known of the deportation risks. Id. at 19-22. Our standard of review of an order denying PCRA relief is whether the record supports the PCRA court’s determination and whether the PCRA court’s determination is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d 317, 319 (Pa. Super. 2011). The PCRA court’s findings will not be -2- J-S84002-17 disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record. Id. We defer to the PCRA court’s factual findings and credibility determinations that are supported ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals