Com. v. Vazquez, J.

J-S70018-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JESUS VAZQUEZ : : Appellant : No. 340 MDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 12, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0002498-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MARCH 08, 2018 Appellant, Jesus Vazquez, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of sentence entered following his entry of a guilty plea to one count of rape of a child. After careful review, we vacate the trial court’s order designating Appellant as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP), but otherwise affirm his judgment of sentence, and remand for the trial court to advise him of his obligations under Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10 et seq. The trial court summarized the factual and procedural history of this case as follows: On February 18, 2015, [Appellant] pled guilty to one (1) count of Rape of a Child, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(c). On June 12, 2015, this [c]ourt sentenced [Appellant] to a term of thirteen (13) to twenty-six (26) years in a State Correctional Institute. J-S70018-17 On January 25, 2017, [Appellant] was granted leave to file a nunc pro tunc Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days. On February 21, 2017, Attorney Carl J. Poveromo filed a nunc pro tunc Notice of Appeal on behalf of [Appellant]. On March 17, 2017, Attorney Poveromo filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. Trial Court Opinion, 4/24/17, at 1. Appellant presents the following issues for our review: 1. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in finding that [Appellant’s] guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made and in accepting [Appellant’s] guilty plea to Rape of a Child, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(c), where the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea show[s] [Appellant] did not understand the guilty plea and its consequences? 2. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion by failing to consider mitigating circumstances, and by relying upon impermissible factors, including the seriousness of the crime and [Appellant’s] national origin and immigration status, to justify imposing a manifestly excessive and unreasonable sentence and ordering [Appellant] to undergo incarceration in a state correctional facility for a minimum term of 156 months to a maximum term of 312 months (13 years to 26 years)? Appellant’s Brief at 4. In his first issue, Appellant asserts that his plea of guilty to rape of a child was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Appellant’s Brief at 12. Appellant argues that the oral colloquy was deficient because even though the court asked Appellant if he was guilty of the crime, the trial court “never explained the elements of Rape of a Child.” Id. at 15. Appellant contends that the written colloquy is likewise silent regarding the elements of ...

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