Com. v. Sanches, R.
768 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Appellant Rafael Sanches pleaded guilty to PWID, conspiracy to commit PWID, possession, paraphernalia, and criminal use of a communication facility in January 2014.
- Plea agreement: Commonwealth would reduce charged marijuana weight from 10.6 to 9.9 pounds and waive the mandatory minimum under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 applicable to PWID.
- Sentenced April 15, 2014 to an aggregate 30–60 months with 36 months probation; post-sentence motion denied and direct appeal affirmed.
- In November 2015 Sanches filed a pro se PCRA petition claiming his plea was induced by the Commonwealth’s promise to waive a mandatory minimum that, he argued, had been rendered unconstitutional by Alleyne.
- At a PCRA evidentiary hearing plea counsel testified he advised acceptance based on both the waiver and the independent benefit of the drug-weight reduction (which lowered guideline exposure by about 12 months).
- PCRA court dismissed the petition; Superior Court affirmed, finding the stand-alone plea-invalid claim waived and rejecting ineffective-assistance claim because counsel had a reasonable basis to recommend the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Sanches' Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Counsel Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea invalid because it was induced by a promise to waive a mandatory minimum that Alleyne rendered unenforceable? | Sanches: Plea involuntary because it was induced to avoid a mandatory minimum that was constitutionally invalid after Alleyne. | Commonwealth: The claim is waived (not raised at plea or post-sentence) and Alleyne’s impact was unsettled; plea benefits existed regardless. | Waived: Sanches failed to preserve the stand-alone plea-validity claim for collateral review. |
| Was plea counsel ineffective for advising Sanches to plead without advising the effect of Alleyne (i.e., that mandatory minimum might be unenforceable)? | Sanches: Counsel misadvised and induced plea by stressing waiver benefit—constituted ineffective assistance. | Counsel: Had reasonable basis—plea produced weight reduction that independently reduced guideline exposure and possible harsher trial penalty existed; Alleyne’s local interpretation was unsettled. | Denied: Appellant failed to prove lack of reasonable basis or resulting prejudice; counsel was not ineffective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (Supreme Court rule that facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 154 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2017) (plea counsel not ineffective where plea avoided harsher trial exposure around Alleyne uncertainty)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc decision addressing Pennsylvania mandatory minimum statutes post-Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 141 A.3d 440 (Pa. 2016) (standards for appellate review and PCRA-related principles)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedures for allowing a defendant to proceed pro se)