Com. v. Serrano, A.
697 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Appellant Alex Serrano entered a negotiated no-contest plea to PWID, dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity, criminal conspiracy, and two counts of corrupt organizations and was sentenced to 4–15 years incarceration.
- Serrano did not pursue direct appeal; he filed several pro se motions to modify sentence, which were denied, then timely filed a pro se PCRA petition claiming the court’s denial orders deprived him of appeal notice.
- Appointed PCRA counsel amended the petition asserting the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the trial court misstated the maximum fines during the plea colloquy (written form listed $25,000; Serrano contends true maxima were $250,000 for some counts).
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing; counsel conceded Serrano should have raised voluntariness on direct appeal and attempted mid-hearing to recast the claim as ineffective assistance of counsel. The court rejected the belated ineffectiveness theory.
- The court denied PCRA relief, finding the Rule 1925(b) statement was too vague (waiving the specific claim), the voluntariness claim was one that should have been raised on direct appeal (and thus is waived), and Serrano suffered no manifest injustice because the actual fine imposed was only $5,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Serrano was entitled to a full evidentiary PCRA hearing on plea voluntariness based on alleged misstatement of maximum fines | The court misled Serrano about possible fines (form and initial statement conflicted), rendering plea unknowing and involuntary; merits an evidentiary hearing | The claim was not preserved in the concise statement, should have been raised on direct appeal, and the misstatement did not cause manifest injustice given the $5,000 fine actually imposed | Denied — claim arguably waived for Rule 1925(b) deficiency and direct-appeal procedural default; no manifest injustice shown, so no remand for further hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Conway v. Commonwealth, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Boyd v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to PCRA court fact findings if record supports them)
- Ford v. Commonwealth, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (no deference to legal conclusions)
- Wah v. Commonwealth, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA hearing not required if no genuine issue of material fact)
- Castillo v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (must comply with Rule 1925(b) to preserve issues)
- Lord v. Commonwealth, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (concise statement requirement and waiver consequences)
- Dowling v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (concise statements too vague are equivalent to none)
- Zook v. Commonwealth, 887 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2005) (PCRA relief eligibility standards)
- Price v. Commonwealth, 876 A.2d 988 (Pa. Super. 2005) (claims cannot be raised on PCRA as if on direct appeal)
- Lincoln v. Commonwealth, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (defendant must object during plea colloquy or move to withdraw plea within ten days to preserve voluntariness claim)
- Barbosa v. Commonwealth, 819 A.2d 81 (Pa. Super. 2003) (misinformation about maximum sentence warrants withdrawal only if it materially affected decision to plead)
- Warren v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 1092 (Pa. Super. 2014) (if actual sentence does not exceed what was communicated, withdrawal is generally not warranted)