Commonwealth v. Garcia
23 A.3d 1059
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Garcia pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance in 2002 and received probation; no direct appeal or post-sentence motions were filed.
- Probation was later violated and Garcia was resentenced in 2009 to prison with a Gagnon II hearing conducted.
- In 2010 Garcia, through new counsel, filed a PCRA petition arguing ineffective assistance regarding deportation consequences of his plea; he is a Dominican Republic citizen with permanent U.S. residence.
- Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) announced a new principle requiring defense counsel to inform noncitizen defendants of deportation risks associated with guilty pleas.
- PCRA petition was filed April 21, 2010, within 60 days of Padilla’s decision, but the court found the petition untimely under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).
- The Superior Court upheld dismissal, holding Padilla did not create a retroactive, after-recognized constitutional right under § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla creates a retroactive, after-recognized right under 9545(b)(1)(iii). | Garcia relies on Padilla as a newly recognized right applied retroactively. | Garcia's claim fails because Padilla did not establish a new retroactive constitutional right under 9545(b)(1)(iii). | No; Padilla does not constitute a retroactive new right for § 9545(b)(1)(iii). |
| Whether Garcia’s PCRA petition was timely under § 9545(b)(1)(iii) given Padilla. | Petition timely because filed within 60 days of Padilla’s decision. | Petition untimely since Padilla does not create a retroactive right; petition not within original one-year window. | Untimely; § 9545(b)(1)(iii) not satisfied; petition dismissed for lack of timely invocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Abdul‑Salaam, 571 Pa. 219, 812 A.2d 497 (2002) (explains past tense requirement for recognizing retroactive rights under 9545(b)(1)(iii))
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 596 Pa. 104, 941 A.2d 646 (2007) (procedural framework for PCRA timeliness and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa.Super.2011) (60-day timeliness trigger for after-recognized rights; burden on petitioner)
- Commonwealth v. Frometa, 520 Pa. 552, 555 A.2d 92 (1989) (retained traditional view on collateral consequences; Padilla overruled for scope of counsel duties but not as new right under 9545(b)(1)(iii))
- Commonwealth v. Abraham, 996 A.2d 1090 (Pa.Super.2010) (Padilla-related analysis on whether the duty of counsel changes under Strickland applies in Pennsylvania)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (held counsel must advise on deportation risks; clarified scope of counsel duties)