Com. v. Gutierrez, J.
1356 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Gutierrez pled guilty on November 13, 2015 to endangering the welfare of a child after leaving his nine‑year‑old son in a running car; sentenced to one year probation the same day.
- He did not file post‑sentence motions or a direct appeal; the probation term expired November 13, 2016 and the case was administratively closed December 27, 2016.
- On December 12, 2016 Gutierrez filed a counseled PCRA petition alleging counsel was ineffective under Padilla for failing to advise him about immigration consequences of his guilty plea; he claimed he first learned of those consequences when ICE took him into custody on June 15, 2016.
- The PCRA court issued a notice of intent to dismiss and dismissed the petition on March 22, 2017 for lack of jurisdiction because Gutierrez was not serving a sentence when he filed the petition.
- Gutierrez appealed, arguing equitable tolling and that his claim fits statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s one‑year filing requirement; he also argued Padilla ineffectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA court had jurisdiction to hear petition filed after sentence expired | Gutierrez: equitable tolling and statutory exceptions make his late PCRA timely | Commonwealth: PCRA requires petitioner be serving a sentence when relief is sought; no jurisdiction once sentence expired | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; PCRA relief unavailable because sentence had expired |
| Whether equitable tolling/§9545 exceptions apply to allow relief after sentence expiration | Gutierrez: delays and ICE custody justify tolling and exceptions | Commonwealth: PCRA timeliness and service‑of‑sentence requirement are strictly construed and not subject to equitable tolling | Court: Rejected equitable tolling; strict rule controls, so exceptions not applicable |
| Whether counsel was ineffective under Padilla for failing to advise on immigration consequences | Gutierrez: would not have pled if advised of mandatory detention/deportation consequences | Commonwealth: merits not reached because of lack of jurisdiction | Court: Did not reach the merits due to lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahlborn v. Commonwealth, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA requires petitioner be serving a sentence to obtain relief)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 977 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PCRA precludes relief for petitioners whose sentences have expired regardless of collateral consequences)
- Descardes v. Commonwealth, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016) (confirming limits on PCRA relief after sentence expiration)
- Plunkett v. Commonwealth, 151 A.3d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2016) (strict interpretation of PCRA eligibility; collecting similar cases)
- Lewis v. Commonwealth, 63 A.3d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA timeliness not subject to equitable tolling)