Com. v. Thach, T.
2641 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Defendant Tai Thach pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and conspiracy and was sentenced to 5–10 years' imprisonment (judgment entered Feb. 6, 2014). An appeal nunc pro tunc followed.
- Thach asserted his plea was unknowing and involuntary because (1) the plea colloquy omitted mandatory elements, (2) the Cambodian interpreter was incompetent, and (3) he was not advised of deportation risk until after sentencing.
- Trial record includes a written guilty plea form (signed by Thach) containing the six Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 areas and a printed “RISK OF DEPORTATION” paragraph; the form was orally translated for Thach.
- Oral plea and sentencing colloquies were conducted with court interpreters; Thach answered questions responsively and affirmed understanding of the translation.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; the Superior Court found counsel complied with Anders procedures and Thach filed no response.
Issues
| Issue | Thach's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea colloquy omitted mandatory Rule 590 elements | Plea lacked required colloquy elements, so plea was unknowing | Written plea form + oral colloquy covered Rule 590 topics; totality of circumstances show understanding | Waived for failure to preserve; on merits, insufficient — plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Interpreter incompetence | Cambodian interpreter could not accurately translate English↔Cambodian/Vietnamese | Official court interpreters translated form and proceedings; Thach responded appropriately | Waived; on merits, record shows competent interpretation and understanding |
| Failure to advise of deportation before sentencing | He was not told of deportation risk until after sentencing | Written plea form (translated and signed) warned of deportation; counsel argued deportation risk at sentencing | Waived; on merits, defendant was adequately informed of deportation risk |
| Anders withdrawal by appellate counsel | (No separate claim) — appellant challenged plea; counsel sought withdrawal as frivolous | Counsel met Anders requirements; certified translated materials provided and no reply from appellant | Withdrawal granted; court reviewed record and affirmed judgment of sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for court-appointed counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders technical requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014) (guilty plea validity judged by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Baney, 860 A.2d 127 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 required colloquy topics)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen of deportation risk from a plea)
- Commonwealth v. Escobar, 70 A.3d 838 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Padilla application — written plea form and counsel statements can suffice to advise of deportation risk)
- Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d 466 (Pa. Super. 2017) (issues regarding guilty-plea voluntariness must be preserved at plea colloquy or by post-sentence motion)