Case Information

*1 J.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA

v. LYDIA GRINE, No. 2028 EDA 2016

Appellant Appeal from the Order, June 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No. CP-09-CR-0002739-2013 BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. FILED APRIL 04, 2017

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: Lydia Grine appeals from June order entered the Court Common Pleas of Bucks County pursuant Post -Conviction Relief Act' ("PCRA") that denied her "petition coram nobis" lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

The set forth the following:

On July 2013, under information No. 2739- [a]ppellant pled guilty pursuant 2013, to Retail Theft[Footnote 1] and negotiated plea Conspiracy Commit Retail Theft[Footnote 2] result an incident occurred March 6, 2013. first degree

Both charges were graded as Appellant was sentenced misdemeanors.

six months' probation completed sentence without incident. did appeal her judgment of sentence.

1- §§ 9541-9546.

[Footnote 1] Pa.C.S.A. § 3929(a)(1). [Footnote 2] 903(c). Appellant a United States citizen but was admitted the United States as conditional permanent resident through her marriage United States citizen on June 5, 2011. Appellant alleges her conditions of permanent residence were removed on December 11, 2013, however, the [a]ppellant's arrest and conviction occurred while her residence status was conditional.

On September 15, 2015, [a]ppellant filed a Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis and hearing was scheduled October 2015. Both the [a]ppellant and Bucks County District Attorney's Office requested continuance hearing was scheduled June 2016. Following hearing on June 2016, this Court denied [a]ppellant's petition writ of Coran [sic] Nobis. On June 30, 2016, [a]ppellant filed timely Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court. Appellant was directed file Concise Statement of Error [sic] Complained on Appeal and has done so. court opinion, 9/2/16 at 1-2 (emphasis added). raises the following issues our review:

[1.] Did the lower court err denying appellant's

petition for writ coram nobis lack of jurisdiction when the claim presented in appellant's petition was not cognizable under [the PCRA] and, therefore, properly pled as petition for writ coram nobis?

[2.] Was appellant entitled to proceed with her

claim petition for coram nobis even if the lower was correct in concluding claim was cognizable under the [PCRA] because never had an opportunity pursue her claim for relief under the PCRA? *3 Appellant's brief at (enumeration added; capitalization omitted).

In her "petition for writ coram nobis," appellant sought permission withdraw her guilty plea because "it was induced by ineffectiveness of her trial counsel" because recent change in law subjected deportation without an opportunity apply waiver. (Appellant's petition coram nobis, 9/15/15 at 1114.) alleged plea counsel's ineffectiveness "for correctly advising [appellant] of the adverse immigration consequences her guilty plea." (Id. at ¶ 8.)

In Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d (Pa. 2016), our supreme court held that claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel, which is based counsel's failure advise the defendant of the collateral consequences of her plea, was cognizable under the PCRA. Furthermore, our supreme found where claim is cognizable under the PCRA, PCRA is the only method obtaining collateral review. Id. Therefore, PCRA court properly considered appellant's petition petition for relief.

As appellant's petition is cognizable under the PCRA, we must now determine whether is eligible relief. Eligibility for relief under the governed by 42 which provides pertinent part:

(a) General Rule. --To be eligible for relief under

this subchapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by preponderance of the evidence all of the following:

(1) That petitioner has been convicted of crime under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the time relief is granted: (i) Currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime; (ii) Awaiting execution of a sentence of death for crime; or

(iii) Serving sentence which must expire before the person may commence serving the disputed sentence.

42 § 9543(a).

Of course, "[e]ligibility for relief under the is dependent upon the petitioner currently serving sentence of imprisonment, probation, or parole crime." Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 761-762 (Pa. 2013). As such, "the denial relief petitioner who has finished serving statute." his sentence required by plain language of is Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997).

Here, appellant was sentenced to six months probation on July 7, completed serving sentence January 2014. Because appellant is no longer serving sentence imprisonment, probation, or parole crime, ineligible relief. See Pa.C.S.A. 9543(a)(1)(i); see also Turner, A.3d at 761-762; Ahlborn, 699 A.2d *5 at 720. Therefore, the court properly denied appellant's petition for lack jurisdiction.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn,

Prothonotary

Date: 4/4/2017