Com. v. Solorio-Flores, E., 376 EDA 2015

Background

Undercover detective negotiated purchase of 1.5 pounds of methamphetamine from a drug organization; surveillance identified Appellant in a nearby gray Dodge Charger.
At the buy, officers seized 1.5 pounds of meth, prerecorded buy money, a loaded Glock, and multiple cell phones; one seized phone belonged to Appellant.
A search of Appellant’s phone showed communications with the courier, the organization’s contact (Montilla), and the detective’s phone numbers despite no direct contact between detective and Appellant.
Appellant was charged with corrupt organizations, PWID, conspiracy to commit PWID, and related offenses; he moved pretrial to bar mandatory minimums under Alleyne, to suppress evidence, and to sever.
Before rulings on those motions, Appellant accepted a negotiated plea to two counts of PWID and one count of conspiracy, received 4–8 years’ incarceration plus ten years’ concurrent probation, and later filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw the plea.
The trial court denied withdrawal; on appeal the Superior Court affirmed, dismissing Appellant’s ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice to collateral review and rejecting his manifest-injustice challenge.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
1. Whether plea withdrawal was required because mandatory minimums (Alleyne) made the plea constitutionally invalid	Appellant said he pled under the belief a 5–10 year mandatory minimum applied but Alleyne rendered mandatory minimums unconstitutional, so plea was involuntary	Record showed Appellant had filed a pretrial Alleyne motion; he previously argued mandatory minimums did not apply, undermining his present claim	Denied—no manifest injustice; Appellant’s prior Alleyne motion contradicted his current position
2. Whether plea was involuntary because counsel failed to inform Appellant of status of pretrial motions	Appellant claimed counsel failed to tell him motions weren’t litigated, so plea wasn’t knowing	Counsel’s pre-plea conduct implicates ineffective-assistance claims, which are to be raised in collateral proceedings	Dismissed without prejudice—claim reserved for post-conviction review
3. Whether plea was involuntary because counsel failed to advise on immigration consequences	Appellant said counsel did not properly apprise him of deportation risk, making plea unknowing	Immigration-advice failures are ineffective-assistance claims to be litigated in collateral proceedings	Dismissed without prejudice—claim reserved for post-conviction review
4. Whether cumulative errors established legal cause to withdraw plea	Appellant argued combined defects required withdrawal	Court found no manifest injustice based on record and prior positions; collateral ineffective claims do not entitle immediate withdrawal	Denied—no legal cause shown; judgment of sentence affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to jury)
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (post-sentence plea withdrawal available only to correct manifest injustice)
Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requirements for valid guilty plea and role of written colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Bradley, 715 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 1998) (counsel must advise clients on important decisions; ineffective assistance principles)
Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (ineffectiveness claims generally reserved for collateral review)
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 708 A.2d 497 (Pa. Super. 1998) (counsel duty to explain plea advantages/disadvantages)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 145 A.3d 184 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial court may address issues despite untimely Rule 1925(b) statement)