Commonwealth v. Ghisoiu
63 A.3d 1272
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant Catalin Ghisoiu pled guilty March 4, 2010 to two counts of robbery via a negotiated plea, with numerous charges dismissed.
- Prior to sentencing, he moved to withdraw the pleas, alleging innocence; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
- Sentencing occurred August 11, 2010, totaling 44 to 88 months’ imprisonment; direct appeal followed and the Superior Court affirmed in 2011; Supreme Court denial occurred in 2011.
- Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition on April 2, 2012, supplemented by counsel, asserting ineffective assistance for not informing him of immigration consequences under Padilla.
- The PCRA court conducted a hearing and denied relief on July 25, 2012; no Pa.R.A.P. 1925 statement was filed.
- On appeal, the issues addressed include retroactivity of Padilla/Wah and whether plea counsel was ineffective for not advising about deportation consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Padilla/Wah | Padilla/Wah apply retroactively to this PCRA claim. | Chaidez v. U.S. holds Padilla not retroactive; Wah is distinguishable. | Padilla not retroactive; but court still analyzes merits under record. |
| Ineffective assistance for immigration advice | Plea counsel failed to advise of immigration consequences, violating Padilla. | Plea counsel did advise of immigration consequences; PCRA credibility findings control. | No relief; the PCRA court's credibility determinations are binding; advisers did discuss immigration consequences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to inform of deportation risk, creating new rule)
- Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Philadelphia Pa. Supreme Court application of Padilla in Pa. context)
- Chaidez v. U.S., 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla not retroactive; new-rule analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 866 A.2d 351 (Pa. 2005) (new-rule retroactivity framework referenced)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (new-rule retroactivity analysis in direct review context)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 47 A.3d 63 (Pa.2012) (PCRA credibility determinations binding)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Padilla interpretation in Pa. PCRA context discussed)