Com. v. Sanchez, N.
540 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Sanchez, a Spanish-speaking defendant, was charged in Lancaster County with multiple heroin-related offenses and pleaded guilty on two dockets, receiving an aggregate sentence of 5–10 years.
- Plea hearings (Jan. 13, 2014 and Oct. 8, 2014) used an official Spanish interpreter; sentencing on the second plea proceeded immediately under a negotiated agreement.
- Sanchez filed a pro se PCRA petition (July 28, 2015); counsel filed a Finley letter seeking withdrawal, and the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and ultimately dismissed the petition and allowed counsel to withdraw (March 3, 2016).
- Sanchez raised claims that plea and PCRA counsel were ineffective for failure to translate plea terms and discovery into Spanish, that his sentence violated Alleyne, and that the court erred in permitting PCRA counsel to withdraw.
- The PCRA court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing; the Superior Court reviewed the record for legal error and supported factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Sanchez's Argument | Commonwealth/PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance at plea — failure to translate plea terms | Counsel failed to properly translate plea terms into Spanish; Sanchez thought sentence would be 2–4 years, so plea was unknowing/involuntary | Official court interpreter was used throughout; colloquies and counsel review (with interpreter and family) show plea was knowing and voluntary | Rejected — claim meritless; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| 2. Ineffective assistance — failure to provide translated discovery | Counsel did not provide discovery translated into Spanish, depriving Sanchez of meaningful preparation | Counsel met and reviewed case with Sanchez using an interpreter; no evidentiary support for prejudice | Rejected — no arguable merit |
| 3. Alleyne challenge to sentence | Sanchez argued sentence implicated Alleyne because of facts increasing penalty | Sanchez did not receive a mandatory minimum sentence | Rejected — Alleyne inapplicable; sentence not illegal |
| 4. PCRA court erred in permitting PCRA counsel to withdraw / denying pro se motions | PCRA counsel should not have been allowed to withdraw; court should have addressed pro se challenges to Finley letter | Sanchez did not seek leave to amend PCRA petition to raise new claims; issues raised were meritless | Rejected — withdrawal proper and court not required to consider new unamended claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedure for counsel seeking to withdraw under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing penalty must be submitted to jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no absolute right to evidentiary hearing on PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (elements to prove ineffective assistance under PCRA)