Com. v. Sanchez-Salomon, J.
Com. v. Sanchez-Salomon, J. No. 2095 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Defendant J. Jesus Sanchez-Salomon pleaded guilty (negotiated plea) to two DUI counts under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) and (c). He was sentenced to 1–5 years’ imprisonment, a $2,500 fine, and costs.
- No post-sentence motions or plea-withdrawal motion were filed before appeal; counsel timely filed a notice of appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement claiming the plea was unknowing and involuntary because Sanchez-Salomon does not speak or write English.
- The guilty plea/sentencing hearing used a certified Spanish interpreter (Rebecca Thatcher Murcia); the transcript shows Sanchez-Salomon participated via the interpreter and made no indication he did not understand or had communication problems.
- The trial court advised Sanchez-Salomon of possible immigration consequences; Sanchez-Salomon acknowledged understanding, and trial counsel stated he was a lawful permanent resident such that automatic deportation was not an issue.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw under Anders and Santiago; the Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago and conducted an independent review of the record.
- The Superior Court concluded the claim that the plea was unknowing due to language barriers (and any immigration-consequences claim) was frivolous, affirmed the judgment of sentence, and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was unknowing/involuntary because defendant does not speak or write English | Court/Prosecution: plea was knowing; interpreter used and defendant showed understanding | Sanchez-Salomon: plea involuntary/unaware due to lack of English proficiency | Rejected — record shows certified Spanish interpreter present and defendant indicated understanding |
| Whether defendant understood immigration consequences of plea | Court: warning given and defendant acknowledged understanding; counsel noted no automatic deportation risk | Sanchez-Salomon: (raised implicitly) did not understand immigration consequences | Rejected — defendant affirmed understanding; trial counsel advised on residency/immigration implications |
| Whether counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw complied with Santiago requirements | Commonwealth: counsel substantially complied with Anders/Santiago and notified defendant of rights | N/A (issue is adequacy of counsel’s Anders submission) | Granted — counsel substantially complied; appellate court conducted independent review |
| Whether any other preserved arguable issues exist on appeal | Commonwealth: none shown in record | Sanchez-Salomon: no other preserved issues raised | Rejected — independent review found no other preserved issues of arguable merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel who seeks to withdraw on appeal to file a brief showing the appeal is frivolous and to notify client of rights)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (describes Pennsylvania-specific requirements for an Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (procedure for counsel withdrawal under Anders)
- Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2006) (authorizes appellate court’s independent review after Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (requires counsel to notify appellant of options after filing Anders brief)