J-S13019-20 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHAN A. ORTIZ GONZALEZ : : Appellant : No. 1075 MDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 1, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0007645-2014 BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 31, 2020 Appellant, Johan A. Ortiz Gonzalez, appeals from the Order entered June 1, 2018, which dismissed his Amended Petition for collateral relief filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Because Appellant is no longer serving a sentence of incarceration, probation, or parole, he is not eligible for relief under the PCRA. Therefore, we affirm. In June 2016, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of Retail Theft.1 The plea court sentenced Appellant to one year of probation plus restitution. See Order, 6/21/16, at 1-4. In January 2017, the York County Probation and Parole Department alleged that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation, including that ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a). J-S13019-20 Appellant had received new charges. See Petition for Probation Violation, 1/26/17. Following a hearing, the lower court revoked Appellant’s probation and resentenced Appellant to six to twenty-three months of incarceration. See Order, 3/20/17, at 1-2. On March 15, 2018, immigration officials detained Appellant. See PCRA Ct. Order and Supporting Mem., 6/1/18, at 3. Following his detention, Appellant filed a Petition for collateral relief and an Amended Petition, asserting ineffective assistance of both plea and revocation counsel. See Amended Petition, 4/26/18.2 In April 2018, the PCRA court granted Appellant partial relief, concluding that revocation counsel was ineffective, vacating Appellant’s revocation sentence, and scheduling a new probation violation hearing. See PCRA Ct. Order, 4/26/18, at 1-4. Thereafter, the court dismissed Appellant’s claim against plea counsel as untimely. See PCRA Ct. Order and Supporting Mem., 6/1/18, at 6. The court also imposed a new Judgment of Sentence for Appellant’s probation violations, sentencing Appellant to time served to eleven and one-half months of incarceration. Resentence Order, 6/1/18.3 ____________________________________________ 2 Essentially, Appellant claimed that prior counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that a conviction for Retail Theft carried immigration consequences for him. Appellant also claimed that he did not learn of these consequences until immigration officials detained him. See generally Appellant’s Amended Petition. 3The court gave Appellant credit for the time he served when he received new charges, from November 28, 2016 to April 22, 2017, a credit of 146 days. See Resentence Order. -2- J-S13019-20 In this timely appeal, Appellant asserts the PCRA court erred in dismissing his ineffectiveness claim against plea counsel as untimely. See Appellant’s Br. at 4. We review an order granting or denying a petition for collateral relief to determine whether the PCRA court’s decision is supported by the evidence of record and free of legal ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals