J-S27034-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : YVES D. JEUDY, : : Appellant : No. 1678 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order May 18, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0007194-2011 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 06, 2018 Appellant, Yves D. Jeudy, appeals from the May 18, 2017 Order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying his first Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541- 9546. He challenges the effectiveness of plea counsel for failing to inform him of the certainty of his deportation. After careful review, we affirm. The underlying facts are not relevant to the instant appeal. Briefly, on September 4, 2010, Appellant fired a gun multiple times at the victim, striking him in the ankle. The Commonwealth charged Appellant with, inter alia, Attempted Murder and related assault and firearms offenses. J-S27034-18 On July 18, 2013, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to one count each of Aggravated Assault and Possession of an Instrument of Crime.1 In exchange, the Commonwealth nolle prossed several charges.2 Appellant executed a written guilty plea colloquy, and the court conducted a thorough colloquy in open court. In both colloquies, Appellant acknowledged the risk of his deportation. The court accepted Appellant’s guilty plea as knowing and voluntary, and imposed an aggregate term of three to six years’ incarceration, followed by four years’ probation. Appellant did not appeal or challenge the validity of his plea. On July 11, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA Petition, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel regarding counsel’s advice about the immigration consequences of his plea. He averred that because of counsel’s deficient advice, his plea was not knowingly entered. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who subsequently filed an Amended PCRA Petition claiming that Appellant’s plea counsel provided him “incorrect information regarding the consequences of his plea on his immigration status.” Appellant’s Amended PCRA Petition, 10/9/15, at 2. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 907, respectively. 2 The trial court also stated that “[t]he case was demandatorized from a five (5) year [mandatory] minimum[.]” PCRA Court Opinion, 11/13/17, at 1. -2- J-S27034-18 After providing notice to Appellant pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s Petition without a hearing on May 18, 2017. Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant presents the following issue for our review: Did the Appellant raise substantial issues of material fact to require that an evidentiary hearing be held prior to determination of the PCRA petition? Appellant’s Brief at 9. We review the denial of a PCRA Petition to determine whether the record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is otherwise free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals