J-A10044-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHOLEY MCKENZIE A/K/A DANIEL BROWN Appellant No. 3061 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered August 24, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0005517-1995 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MCLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM, J.* MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED JUNE 20, 2018 Appellant, Choley McKenzie, a/k/a Daniel Brown, appeals from the order entered August 24, 2017, denying as untimely his petition for collateral relief flied under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. We adopt the following statement of facts from the trial court opinion, which in turn is supported by the record. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 10/27/17, at 1-5. On November 10, 1995, Appellant was arrested and charged with possession with intent to deliver and related offenses. 1 It is unclear from the record why no further action was taken until December 9, 2002. Regardless, on that date, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to ____________________________________________ 1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A10044-18 PWID. That same day, he was sentenced to the negotiated term of nine to twenty-three months of incarceration. He did not appeal his sentence, and indeed, completed it over thirteen years ago. At some time in 2017, Appellant was detained on an immigration violation. On August 21, 2017, Appellant pro se filed the instant petition, which he styled as a “Pro Se Motion for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.” 2 Appellant argued that his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by 1) not objecting to the drug type for which Appellant pleaded guilty to possessing; 2) not advising him of his right to a jury trial or his ability to challenge the evidence; 3) not objecting to the fact that Appellant was deported and the DA’s office should have dismissed the charges as a result of Appellant’s deportation; and 4) abandoning Appellant’s direct appeal. See Pro Se Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, 8/21/17, at 2-6. Appellant also argued that based upon a change in law, he was entitled to a lesser sentence.3 Id. Appellant averred that he was entitled to a writ of coram nobis because he had completed his sentence and relief was no longer available to address the “miscarriage of justice” that had occurred. Id. The trial court denied Appellant’s petition on August 24, 2017. Appellant timely appealed and both the trial court and Appellant have complied with ____________________________________________ 2 A petition for writ of error coram nobis “is generally available to challenge the validity of a judgment based on facts not before the court when the judgment was entered.” Commonwealth v. Sheehan, 285 A.2d 465, 467 (Pa. 1971). 3 From his petition, it is unclear the change in law to which Appellant refers. -2- J-A10044-18 Pa.R.A.P. 1925. In its 1925(a) opinion, the trial court notes that if it did commit error, it should ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals