J-S14008-23 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DIEGO JEREMIAS GUZMAN : : Appellant : No. 672 WDA 2022 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0005112-2021 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: JUNE 26, 2023 Diego Jeremias Guzman appeals the judgment of sentence entered following his guilty plea to two counts of simple assault. Guzman claims he was illegally detained when the trial court ordered he be held in jail without bail for 6 months while awaiting trial. However, because Guzman failed to file a petition for specialized review of the bail order, he has waived this claim. We therefore affirm. Because the procedural history is central to the only issue raised on appeal, we focus on that history. The Commonwealth charged Guzman with aggravated assault, strangulation, and simple assault after police responded to a domestic disturbance call. ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S14008-23 On July 2, 2021, Guzman was arraigned and given an unsecured bond. After failing to appear for his preliminary hearing on July 31, 2021, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. On September 7, 2021, the trial court revoked Guzman’s bond. The Commonwealth subsequently learned that Guzman was being held in the Beaver County Jail for reasons related to immigration and filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum requesting Guzman be transferred to the Allegheny County Jail for a September 27, 2021 bail hearing.1 See Petition, 9/21/21. Further, the petition requested that Guzman be held in Allegheny County Jail without bond until the conclusion of the case. See id. The trial court granted the habeas petition and Guzman was transported to Allegheny County. See Trial Court Order, 9/21/21. The trial court subsequently denied Guzman bail. See Bail Certification, 9/27/21. The certification does not set forth any reasoning for the denial of bail. There is no indication in the record that a bail hearing was held prior to the entry of the bail certification. And notably, defense counsel did not enter an appearance in this case until October 13, 2021. The case proceeded through several continuances, with no action on bail, until Guzman filed a motion to modify bond and vacate the order in early ____________________________________________ 1 A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is generally accepted to mean an order directing removal of a prisoner from his current place of incarceration “in order to prosecute him in the proper jurisdiction wherein the offense was committed.” U.S. v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 357 (1978). -2- J-S14008-23 March 2022. In this motion, Guzman argued that the September 21, 2021 order created an illegal detention. See Motion, 3/11/22, at ¶ 11. In support, Guzman claimed his immigration detainer had automatically expired after 48 hours since federal immigration officials had …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals