J-S04020-22 2022 PA Super 26 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BENOY THOMAS : : Appellant : No. 680 EDA 2021 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 19, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at CP-23-CR-0001355-2020 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* OPINION BY MURRAY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 15, 2022 Benoy Thomas (Appellant) appeals from the order dismissing his timely petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. This case began when, [o]n March 3, 2020, Appellant was arrested and charged with various criminal offenses, including four counts of Possession with Intent to Deliver (35 P.S. § 780-113(A)(30)). On July 13, 2020 Appellant tendered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver (ungraded felony). In accordance with the negotiated plea agreement, this [c]ourt immediately imposed upon Appellant a sentence of, inter alia, confinement for a minimum term of three months (to be served on electronic home monitoring) to a maximum term of twenty-three months, followed by a two-year term of county probation. PCRA Court Opinion, 7/16/21, at 1-2. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S04020-22 Appellant did not file a direct appeal. With new representation, he timely filed a PCRA petition alleging ineffectiveness of prior counsel (Plea Counsel). Appellant claims counsel’s ineffectiveness led to his placement “in deportation proceedings by ICE as a result of his guilty plea.” PCRA Petition, 8/13/20, at 3. Appellant’s Petition and Commonwealth Response Appellant is not a United States citizen. He is a citizen of India, and his native language is Malayalam. See id. Appellant avers he has “limited proficiency in English,” and Plea Counsel failed to request a translator. Id. Appellant asserts Plea Counsel advised him “that the risk of deportation was not a real risk in this case.” Id. (emphasis in original). He states Plea Counsel failed to “inquire as to [Appellant’s] immigration status prior to the Guilty Plea Hearing,” and failed to advise Appellant “there could be collateral immigration consequences.” Id. at 3, 5. Because Plea Counsel provided Appellant “with false assurances that the possibility of deportation resulting from the guilty plea was not a real one,” Appellant “believed that he had no real adverse immigration consequence by pleading guilty to the crime of Possession of a Controlled Substance With the Intent to Deliver – Cocaine.” Id. at 3-4, 5. “After his Guilty Plea Hearing, [Appellant] first discovered that his conviction has adverse immigration consequences when he was placed in deportation proceedings.” Id. at 4. Appellant “would have rejected the plea” -2- J-S04020-22 had Plea Counsel properly advised him of the “real adverse immigration consequences.” Id. at 7. Appellant asserts Plea Counsel was ineffective for misadvising him about the likelihood of being deported, and “prejudicial ineffectiveness … undermined the process in this case so no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals