J-S18005-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : PRIMALFI FRONETA MORALES : : Appellant : No. 1648 MDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0007549-2016 BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS,* P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: AUGUST 23, 2019 Primalfi Froneta Morales appeals from the order that denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). We affirm. Appellant is a native of the Dominican Republic who obtained legal status as a permanent resident of the United States. On March 30, 2017, Appellant, with the assistance of an interpreter, pled guilty to delivering more than five grams of heroin and was sentenced to six to twenty-three months of imprisonment.1 At the conclusion of the plea/sentencing hearing, plea counsel ____________________________________________ 1 Although English is Appellant’s second language, his counsel indicated that all of his conversations with Appellant had been in English, that Appellant speaks “fairly good English,” that Appellant’s wife was regularly present to assist in translation “if there were ever any issues of concern.” N.T. Plea & Sentence, 3/30/17, at 3. As such, counsel believed that Appellant “very much * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S18005-19 stated “for the record, we have had a discussion with respect to what I believe is the very real possibility of immigration consequences associated with this particular plea, and my client understands that . . . .”2 N.T. Plea & Sentence, 3/30/17, at 8. His judgment of sentence became final on April 29, 2018, when he failed to file a direct appeal.3 Appellant filed a timely, counseled PCRA petition on March 28, 2018. Therein, Appellant claimed that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because (1) plea counsel failed to inform him that his conviction guaranteed his “removal from the United States, loss of Lawful Permanent Resident Status, and a lifetime bar from reentering the United States;” and (2) the trial court failed to conduct a plea colloquy that sufficiently assured that Appellant understood the immigration consequences of his plea. PCRA Petition, 3/28/18, at ¶ 7. ____________________________________________ understood” the terms of the plea agreement. Id. Appellant, through the interpreter, indicated that counsel’s representations were correct. Id. 2 The trial court amplified counsel’s statement about the impending immigration consequences of Appellant’s conviction by concluding the hearing with the following: “Mr. Trump’s watching. He’s coming for you. Thank you. Good luck to you.” N.T. Plea & Sentence, 3/30/17, at 8. 3 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3) (“[A] judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review.”) (emphasis added). The PCRA court erroneously opined that Appellant’s failure to file a direct appeal caused his judgment of sentence to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals