Commonwealth, Aplt v. Descares
136 A.3d 493
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Claude Descardes, a Haitian lawful permanent resident, pled guilty in 2006 to insurance fraud and conspiracy; he was sentenced to probation and a fine and did not appeal.
- Descardes was not informed that his plea could lead to deportation; after leaving the U.S. in 2009 he was denied reentry because of the convictions.
- In December 2009 Descardes filed a coram nobis petition claiming plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about deportation; the trial court treated it as a PCRA petition and dismissed it as untimely, citing prior Pennsylvania law that deportation is a collateral consequence.
- After Padilla v. Kentucky (U.S. 2010) held counsel must advise about deportation, Descardes filed another coram nobis petition; the trial court treated it as a timely PCRA petition under the Padilla exception, vacated his conviction, and allowed withdrawal of the plea.
- The Superior Court en banc reversed in part: it held coram nobis could be used by someone no longer in custody but concluded Padilla announced a new rule not retroactive under Chaidez, so Descardes was not entitled to relief.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review limited to whether the Superior Court’s approach conflicted with this Court’s PCRA exclusivity precedents and held that where a claim is cognizable under the PCRA the PCRA is the exclusive remedy; Descardes was ineligible for PCRA relief because he was no longer serving a sentence, so the courts lacked jurisdiction and his petition must be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Descardes) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis may be used to review ineffective-assistance claims cognizable under the PCRA when petitioner is no longer in custody | Coram nobis remains available because Descardes was never eligible for PCRA relief (he had completed his sentence before Padilla) and faces significant collateral consequences | Where a claim is cognizable under the PCRA, the PCRA is the sole avenue for collateral relief even if petitioner is no longer eligible; allowing coram nobis would undermine PCRA limits | Court held PCRA is exclusive for cognizable claims; coram nobis not available here because the claim was cognizable under the PCRA and Descardes was ineligible (no longer serving a sentence) |
| Whether Padilla-created ineffective-assistance claim entitled petitioner to relief despite lapse of PCRA eligibility | Padilla recognized counsel must advise about deportation; that right justifies review when no PCRA avenue exists | Padilla does not change that cognizable PCRA claims must be pursued under the PCRA; Padilla’s retroactivity is resolved by federal Chaidez | Court rejected relief via coram nobis; noted Padilla retroactivity problem but based decision on PCRA exclusivity |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA is the exclusive remedy for collateral review of cognizable claims)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 771 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 2001) (reinforces PCRA exclusivity; claims cognizable under PCRA must proceed there)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen clients when a conviction carries a risk of deportation)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (U.S. 2013) (Padilla announced a new rule that is not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Stock, 679 A.2d 760 (Pa. 1996) (distinct: nunc pro tunc relief outside PCRA where petitioner never was eligible for PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Frometa, 555 A.2d 92 (Pa. 1989) (prior Pennsylvania precedent treating deportation as collateral consequence; counsel not ineffective for failing to advise)