Com. v. Thompson, N.
3829 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Nyran Dale Thompson, a lawful permanent resident, pled guilty on May 6, 2014 to possession with intent to deliver (PWID) while represented by the Monroe County Public Defender; sentenced to 11½ to 23 months concurrent with an existing NY sentence.
- He received credit for time served, was released on parole, then returned to New York to finish that sentence; his Pennsylvania conviction prompted immigration detention/deportation proceedings.
- Thompson filed a pro se PCRA petition (July 9, 2015) alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel; counsel was appointed and an amended petition alleged plea counsel failed to advise of deportation risk.
- A PCRA hearing was held December 7, 2015; the PCRA court denied relief, finding the record showed Thompson was informed about immigration consequences.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and sought to withdraw; Thompson appealed. The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with withdrawal procedures and the merits of the IAC claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise of immigration consequences | Thompson: plea counsel did not properly advise him of deportation risk prior to pleading guilty | Commonwealth / PCRA court: record (plea colloquy, plea form, counsel’s statements) shows Thompson was informed of deportation risk | Denied — court found plea counsel was not ineffective; Thompson was informed of immigration consequences |
| Whether PCRA counsel properly sought withdrawal under Turner/Finley | Thompson (implicitly): counsel should have raised additional IAC claims on appeal | PCRA counsel: complied with Turner/Finley requirements and filed no-merit letter; notified Thompson of rights | Granted — withdrawal permitted; court independently reviewed record and deemed appeal meritless |
| Whether pro se IAC claims raised on appeal are reviewable | Thompson raised claims (Rule 600, coercion, failure to file appellate brief) in pro se reply | Commonwealth: such claims are waived when raised for first time on appeal or omitted from amended petition/1925(b) statement | Waived — those claims not considered because first raised on appeal or not preserved |
| Whether Superior Court must independently review when counsel files no-merit letter | Thompson: N/A (procedural) | PCRA counsel asserted compliance with procedure; Superior Court required to review independently | Court performed independent review and affirmed PCRA court’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel withdrawal when asserting appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural standards for no‑merit withdrawal by PCRA counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal; deference to PCRA court facts, plenary review of law)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (ineffectiveness claims against PCRA counsel cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (discussing counsel withdrawal and appellate review standards)