Com. v. Gonzalez, M.
Com. v. Gonzalez, M. No. 1486 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 26, 2017Background
- In Feb. 2013 Gonzalez was arrested with cocaine, two handguns, a submachine gun, and ammunition at a motel.
- He pled guilty (July 29, 2013) to PWID, possession, paraphernalia, and multiple firearm offenses; plea negotiations were premised on a believed five-year mandatory minimum tied to firearm possession in proximity to drugs.
- At sentencing counsel, prosecutor, and court mistakenly believed the five-year mandatory minimum (42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1) applied to a firearms count; in fact it would have applied to the PWID count and, as applied, did not produce the sentence imposed.
- Gonzalez received 5–10 years’ incarceration (within guideline range for the firearm possession offense), followed by five years’ probation; the court stated a trial would likely have produced a harsher sentence (10–20 years).
- Gonzalez filed a timely PCRA petition alleging plea counsel ineffective for failing to challenge mandatory-minimum exposure under Alleyne, thus rendering his plea involuntary; the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed, concluding counsel had a reasonable basis for pleading given likely greater exposure at trial and Gonzalez failed to prove prejudice (no showing he would have insisted on trial or that the plea produced a substantially harsher sentence because of the alleged error).
Issues
| Issue | Gonzalez's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise/discuss Alleyne and challenge mandatory-minimum exposure, rendering plea involuntary | Counsel misadvised him about facing three consecutive five-year mandatory terms; plea was tainted and involuntary | Counsel acted reasonably given the likelihood of a harsher sentence at trial and the plea produced a favorable outcome; Gonzalez cannot show prejudice | Denied — counsel had a reasonable basis; Gonzalez failed to prove prejudice or that he would have gone to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding facts that increase penalty must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez-Negron, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (found counsels’ shared misapprehension about mandatory minimums could render plea involuntary where sentence disparity established prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (presumption that counsel is effective and counsel’s strategic choices are given deference)
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for demonstrating prejudice in guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims — reasonable probability defendant would have insisted on trial)