Com. v. Castellanos, H.
Com. v. Castellanos, H. No. 1095 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 2, 2017Background
- Appellant Hector Castellanos, a noncitizen, was found intoxicated at a train station; officers discovered a baggie of white powder and he pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance on October 1, 2015.
- He waived counsel, signed a written plea colloquy (which noted potential deportation), and was sentenced the same day to six months’ probation plus fees and costs; he did not file a direct appeal.
- His probation expired April 1, 2016; Immigration and Customs Enforcement then initiated removal proceedings.
- On May 23, 2016, Castellanos filed a counseled petition styled as PCRA / habeas corpus / coram nobis challenging the plea validity (claiming lack of interpreter advice and failure to warn about deportation).
- The trial court treated the filing as a PCRA petition, issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, and dismissed it as untimely/ineligible because Castellanos was no longer serving a sentence when he filed.
- Castellanos appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding his claims were cognizable under the PCRA but he was statutorily ineligible under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i) because his sentence had expired.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9543(a)(1)(i) (must be currently serving a sentence to be eligible for PCRA) is unconstitutional (facial and as-applied) | §9543(a)(1)(i) violates due process, right to counsel, and right to appeal because it bars collateral review for short sentences and fails to account for post-sentence consequences (deportation, etc.) | The statute is constitutional and limits PCRA relief to persons with a present liberty interest (those serving a sentence); claims should proceed on direct appeal or timely PCRA while serving sentence | Statute is constitutional; petitioner has no due-process right to collateral review once sentence ends; claim fails facially and as-applied (affirmed) |
| Whether the petition should have been treated as habeas corpus or coram nobis rather than PCRA | The court erred by treating the filing as a PCRA petition and should have entertained habeas or coram nobis because PCRA jurisdiction was lacking | Claims are cognizable under the PCRA; statutory scheme makes PCRA the sole vehicle for collateral attack when claims fall within its scope | Petition properly treated as PCRA because issues (constitutional violation, unlawfully induced plea) are within PCRA ambit |
| Whether the PCRA court retained jurisdiction because appellant still owed fees/costs and could be in technical probation violation | Appellant argued he remained under court control due to unpaid fees and thus was still serving a sentence eligible for PCRA relief | Court and Commonwealth noted fees/costs were part of sentence, not conditions of probation, and appellant was not serving probation when he filed | Court correctly found appellant was not serving a sentence when petition filed; technical violation argument rejected |
| Whether dismissal without a hearing violated appellant’s rights | Argued dismissal without hearing improperly denied opportunity to be heard on constitutional claims | Commonwealth argued no genuine issue of material fact and petitioner statutorily ineligible; no purpose to hearing | No entitlement to hearing where petitioner statutorily ineligible and record supported dismissal; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (upholding §9543(a)(1)(i); due process does not require collateral review for those not serving a sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (statute’s language requires petitioner be serving sentence; relief not available after sentence completion)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA is the proper vehicle for collateral claims that fall within its scope)
- Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (same: PCRA subsumes other post-conviction remedies when claims are cognizable under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (habeas corpus remains separate only for claims not cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA scope should be broadly construed to channel collateral claims into PCRA framework)
- Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987 (Pa.Super. 2004) (a habeas petition is treated as PCRA when it raises PCRA-cognizable issues)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 977 A.2d 1174 (Pa.Super. 2009) (petitioner becomes ineligible for PCRA relief once sentence is completed)
- Commonwealth v. McKown, 79 A.3d 678 (Pa.Super. 2013) (facial invalidation of statute requires showing it is invalid in all applications)