Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya
163 A.3d 466
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Stiven A. Monjaras-Amaya faced two dockets of criminal charges arising from separate incidents: January 7, 2016 (loitering/prowling, paraphernalia, underage alcohol; resisting arrest nolle prossed) and March 23, 2016 (DUI and related motor vehicle offenses).
- He waived preliminary hearings and, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to the remaining charges on August 25, 2016 after signing a written plea colloquy with counsel.
- The court sentenced him to 72 hours to 6 months’ incarceration, a $1,000 fine, and 12 months’ probation (concurrent). No post-sentence motions were filed.
- Monjaras-Amaya filed timely notices of appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, arguing his plea was not knowing/voluntary because he was confused about immigration consequences and that Pennsylvania’s warnings do not satisfy Padilla v. Kentucky.
- The trial court and Commonwealth raised procedural waiver: he did not object during the plea colloquy or file a post-sentence motion to withdraw the plea, so the challenge to plea voluntariness was not preserved.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the claim waived and noting ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims related to immigration advice are cognizable in a PCRA petition rather than on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Monjaras‑Amaya's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether his guilty plea was involuntary because he was confused about immigration consequences despite acknowledging risk | His plea colloquy shows confusion and he was not properly apprised of immigration consequences, so plea not knowing/voluntary | He failed to preserve the claim by not objecting at plea colloquy or filing post‑sentence motion; issue waived | Waived for failure to preserve; appeal denied |
| Whether Pennsylvania’s immigration‑consequence warnings satisfy Padilla v. Kentucky | Pennsylvania’s warnings are insufficient under Padilla’s standard | Preservation rule bars review; substantive adequacy not addressed on direct appeal | Waived; substantive Padilla analysis left for collateral review (PCRA) |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise regarding deportation risk in certain circumstances)
- Pantalion v. Commonwealth, 957 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2008) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects)
- D'Collanfield v. Commonwealth, 805 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2002) (must object at colloquy or file post‑sentence motion to preserve plea‑voluntariness claim)
- Lincoln v. Commonwealth, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (same preservation requirements for plea challenges)
- Kohan v. Commonwealth, 825 A.2d 702 (Pa. Super. 2003) (cannot cure failure to preserve by raising issue in Rule 1925(b))
- Watson v. Commonwealth, 835 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2003) (preservation rule enforcement)
- Melendez–Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 856 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court addressing unpreserved claim in Rule 1925(a) does not preserve issue)
- Roberts v. Commonwealth, 352 A.2d 140 (Pa. Super. 1976) (trial court should correct plea errors in first instance)
- Grant v. Commonwealth, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective assistance claims generally raised on collateral review)
- Holmes v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA is the appropriate vehicle for ineffective assistance claims)
- Descardes v. Commonwealth, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016) (ineffective assistance for failure to advise about collateral consequences cognizable under PCRA)