Commonwealth v. Escobar
70 A.3d 838
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Israel Escobar pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver (cocaine); plea colloquy and counsel informed him deportation was possible and likely.
- After sentencing, no direct appeal; Escobar filed a timely PCRA petition alleging plea was involuntary because counsel failed to properly advise him of deportation consequences.
- PCRA court held plea counsel ineffective for not definitively telling Escobar he would be deported and vacated the conviction, listing the case for trial.
- Commonwealth appealed the PCRA court’s order granting relief.
- The Superior Court assessed whether counsel’s advice met the Padilla duty to inform noncitizen defendants about deportation risk and whether counsel’s performance rendered the plea involuntary.
- Court concluded counsel’s advice that deportation was likely satisfied Padilla; relief was reversed and the conviction and sentence were to be reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that deportation would definitely occur | Escobar: counsel should have told him he would be deported, so plea was involuntary | Commonwealth: counsel told Escobar deportation was possible/likely, satisfying duty | Counsel not ineffective; advising that deportation was likely satisfied Padilla; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| What Padilla requires when statute makes conviction deportable | Escobar: where statute clearly makes one deportable, counsel must state deportation certainty | Commonwealth: Padilla requires advising risk; certainty of actual removal not required | Padilla requires advising whether plea carries risk; certainty that removal will occur is not required |
| Prejudice standard for plea-based ineffectiveness under PCRA | Escobar: incorrect advice induced involuntary plea | Commonwealth: no deficient advice, so no prejudice | No ineffective assistance proved; no prejudice; plea stands |
| Whether PCRA court erred as a matter of law in its interpretation of Padilla | Escobar: PCRA court correctly applied Padilla to require certainty | Commonwealth: PCRA court misapplied Padilla by equating deportability with inevitable removal | Superior Court reversed PCRA court; legal error found in requiring certainty of actual deportation |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (recognizes duty to advise noncitizen of deportation risk when pleading guilty)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 983 A.2d 666 (PCRA ineffective-assistance standard)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184 (plea validity requires competent counsel advice)
- Commonwealth v. Boyer, 962 A.2d 1213 (standard for reviewing PCRA court orders)
- Commonwealth v. McDermitt, 66 A.3d 810 (Padilla discussion; advising of deportation risk satisfied where proceedings were already underway)