Com. v. Maitland, K.


J-A21012-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : KEBLE MAITLAND : : Appellant : No. 3354 EDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 31, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0005478-2016 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 22, 2019 Keble Maitland appeals from the order that denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). We affirm. The PCRA court summarized the history of this case as follows. After an investigation into a group of individuals involved in the trafficking of cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin within Bucks and Philadelphia Counties, the investigation implicated Appellant as a part of this criminal organization as a drug trafficker. On June 19, 2017, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to deliver. In the course of pleading guilty, Appellant completely filled out and endorsed a written guilty plea colloquy as well as placed an oral guilty plea colloquy on the record. This court accepted Appellant’s guilty plea as knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Appellant did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea. On September 6, 2017, this court sentenced Appellant to a standard range sentence of not less than three (3) years to no more than six (6) years of incarceration on that sole count. On September 15, 2017, Appellant filed a motion to reconsider sentence. On November 28, 2017, this court had a hearing on Appellant’s motion to reconsider sentence. At the conclusion of the hearing, this court granted Appellant’s motion to reconsider sentence and J-A21012-19 imposed a new sentence of two and a half to five years of imprisonment. [Appellant] did not file a direct appeal. On May 2018, Appellant filed, through counsel, a PCRA petition alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with an immigration lawyer prior to his guilty plea colloquy and for allegedly failing to advise him of the risk of deportation if he pleaded guilty. On August 20, 2018, this court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which trial counsel, Ronald Elgart, Esquire, Appellant, and Appellant’s wife, Sydonie Maitland, testified. On October 31, 2018, after the consideration of the arguments of counsel, legal memoranda and testimony of witnesses, this court ordered that [Appellant]’s petition pursuant to the [PCRA] be denied. On November 19, 2018, Appellant entered a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court. PCRA Court Opinion, 2/21/19, at 1-2 (footnotes and unnecessary capitalization omitted). The PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant, through counsel, filed a document that was timely in light of the grant of extensions, but was the opposite of concise. The PCRA court determined that the myriad issues suggested in Appellant’s statement boil down to an allegation that the PCRA court erred ...

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