J-S01021-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JERMAINE L. KERR : : Appellant : No. 959 MDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order May 16, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0000367-2016, CP-22-CR-0002787-2015, CP-22-CR-0006724-2014, CP-22-CR-0006728-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI*, J. MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JANUARY 25, 2019 Jermaine L. Kerr (Appellant) appeals from the order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. On March 2, 2016, Appellant, a legal permanent resident of the United States and native of Jamaica, pled guilty to multiple counts of terroristic threats, simple assault, violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and one count of criminal trespass. The same day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 60 months of probation. On November 9, 2016, the trial court revoked Appellant’s probation for violating numerous conditions of his supervision, including, inter alia, violating the prohibition on possessing controlled substances. The same day, the trial court imposed a new sentence of 3 to 18 months of incarceration. *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S01021-19 On March 6, 2017, Appellant filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief; the court properly treated the filing as a PCRA petition and appointed counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition on January 10, 2018. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C ). In the interim, Appellant was transferred to the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in York County, Pennsylvania, where he currently remains. The PCRA court held a hearing on Appellant’s PCRA petition on March 1 and 22, 2018. On May 16, 2018, the PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition. On June 12, 2018, Appellant timely appealed to this Court. Both the PCRA court and Appellant have complied with Rule 1925 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for review: 1. Did the PCRA [c]ourt abuse its discretion and commit legal error when it declined to conclude that plea counsel’s failure to advise [Appellant] that he faced deportation amounts to per se ineffectiveness which resulted in [Appellant] entering an unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent plea? 2. Did the PCRA [c]ourt abuse its discretion and commit legal error when it declined to conclude that plea counsel’s failure to procure a language interpreter during plea negotiations amounts to a denial of the right to counsel which resulted in [Appellant] entering an unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent plea? Appellant’s Brief at 2-3. “In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record and free of legal error.” -2- J-S01021-19 Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014) (quotations and citations omitted). “To be entitled to PCRA relief, [an] appellant must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, [that] ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals