Commonwealth v. Descardes
101 A.3d 105
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Descardes, Haitian national with resident alien status, pled guilty to insurance fraud and conspiracy on August 9, 2006; sentenced to one year probation and $100 fine on November 30, 2006; no direct appeal filed.
- He left the United States and was denied re-entry due to felony convictions related to the plea.
- Descardes sought coram nobis relief based on Padilla, claiming plea counsel failed to advise him of deportation risks.
- The trial court treated the petition as PCRA relief and vacated the 2006 judgment, ordering the guilty plea withdrawn; Commonwealth appealed.
- The court held Descardes was not eligible for PCRA relief because he was not serving a sentence, and deportation is not a sentence; Padilla’s deportation issue is not retroactive for PCRA.
- The court concluded coram nobis was the proper vehicle, but Padilla does not apply retroactively per Chaidez; order reversed and remanded for coram nobis proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was cognizable under the PCRA | PCRA is the sole means of collateral relief and governs cognizable claims. | Coram nobis remains a cognizable remedy for certain claims not covered by PCRA. | Petition not cognizable under PCRA; coram nobis proper path |
| Whether Padilla’s rule applies retroactively for collateral review | Padilla creates a retroactive rule for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. | Chaidez controls and Padilla is not retroactive on collateral review. | Padilla not retroactive; Chaidez controls |
| Whether coram nobis can be used when the petitioner is no longer serving a sentence | Coram nobis can address deportation-based ineffectiveness outside the PCRA. | Coram nobis does not extend to this context or override PCRA limitations. | Coram nobis available only in limited contexts; here not entitled to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court 2010) (attorney must inform client of deportation risk from guilty plea)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (Supreme Court 2013) (Padilla not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA eligibility and custodial requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 864 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2004) (PCRA scope excludes coram nobis when claim cognizable under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Frometa, 555 A.2d 92 (Pa. 1989) (plea counsel not liable for collateral consequences prior to Padilla)
- Commonwealth v. Ahlbom, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA eligibility and collateral review framework)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 771 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 2001) (scope of cognizable PCRA claims and coram nobis interplay)
- Commonwealth v. Haun, 32 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2011) (PCRA breadth and coram nobis context)