Lead Opinion
On Fеbruary 10, 1986, Appellee, Jorge Frometa was charged with one count of possession with intent to manufacture and deliver cocaine, three cоunts of unlawful delivery of cocaine and two counts of criminal conspiracy. He entered pleas of guilty to these charges and was sentenced to a term of four (4) to eight (8) years imprisonment. Frometa is a Cuban National who entered the United States as part of the Marielito boat lift off the cоast of Key West, Florida on May 21, 1980. As a result of his convictions an immigration detainer was lodged against Frometa by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Follоwing sentencing, Frometa filed a motion to modify his sentence which was denied by the court. A direct appeal was taken and dismissed as untimely. Frometa then petitioned the court under the Post Conviction Hearing Act alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of the collateral consequеnces of entering guilty pleas, namely the possibility of being deported. After an evidentiary hearing was held, the court denied post conviction relief аnd Frometa appealed. On appeal the Superior Court, relying upon its decision in Commonwealth v. Wellington,
In Commonwealth v. Pierce,
Similarly, a defendant’s lack of knowledge of the collateral consequences of pleading guilty does not undermine the validity of his guilty plea. Like the distinctions in the law regarding the waiver of the right to a jury trial, alluded to by Justice McDermott in Anthony, the collateral consequences of pleading guilty are both numerous and remote.
Deportation is but one of a host of collaterаl consequences of pleading guilty. See, United States v. Romero-Vilca.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Superior Court and reinstate the judgment of sentence.
Notes
. A mеre sampling of collateral consequences of pleading guilty are the loss of the right to vote, U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 2, to enlist in the armed services, 10 U.S.C.A. § 504, to own а firearm, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105, or fishing license, 30 Pa.C.S.A. § 928, to inherit property, 20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8802-11, and to practice a particular profession, e.g., 63 P.S. §§ 422.22(b), 422.40(b), 422.41(3) (physician); 63 P.S. § 479.11(a) (funeral director); 63 P.S. § 34.19(a)(8) (architect). It may be grounds for divorce 23 P.S. § 201(a)(5), or termination of parental rights, In re Adoption of M.J.H.,
. We note that our decision is in line with a majority of state and federal courts. See, Tafoya v. State,
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
I find myself unable to join the majority opinion, so I write separately to express my own views.
Where is a dеfendant, especially a defendant who is new to this country and who may not even speak English, supposed to learn that one consequence to pleading guilty is that he will be deported? The majority states that “ ‘... allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused appellant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea.’ ” Supra, at 555 (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams,
While it may be too muсh to require a criminal defense attorney to become expert in the byzantine intricacies of immigration law, I would strongly urge a lawyer to make the client aware that there are consequences in terms of the client’s immigration status. While those consequences may not always be of paramount concern to every client, not to provide some warning is a great disservice to those few clients to whom it would be of paramount concеrn because of their immigrant status. Such a precaution would impose a minor burden on counsel and would be of great benefit to defendants.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I dissent because I believe that trial cоunsel was ineffective in failing to advise the defendant of the deportation consequences of entering a guilty plea. I would affirm the order of the Superior Court based upon the reasoning set forth by Judge Tamalia.
