Com. v. Gumbs, M.

J-S57037-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHEL E. GUMBS, : : Appellant : No. 472 MDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 20, 2019 in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0003414-2016 BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 02, 2019 Michel E. Gumbs (“Gumbs”) appeals from the Order denying his first Petition for Relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. In its Opinion, the PCRA court summarized the procedural history underlying this appeal as follows: On or about August 30, 2016[, Gumbs1] was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance [(“PWID”)] and possession of a controlled substance. On July 18, 2017[, Gumbs, represented by Nanda Palissery, Esquire (“Attorney Palissery”),] entered a guilty plea to [PWID,] and [he] was sentenced on the same day to undergo a period of incarceration of three to twenty-three months in the Luzerne County Correctional Facility. [Gumbs] did not file any post- sentence motions or appeals. On November 5, 2018, [Gumbs], though counsel, filed a PCRA Petition and[,] on November 26, 2018[,] filed an amended PCRA Petition. [The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary] … hearing [on the Petition] on ____________________________________________ 1 Relevant to this appeal, Gumbs is a citizen of the Netherlands. J-S57037-19 December 20, 2018[, (“PCRA hearing”), wherein Gumbs alleged that Attorney Palissery was] … ineffective[] for failing to advise [Gumbs] of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea[, pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 371, 374 (2010) (holding that the failure of a criminal defense attorney to advise his or her non-citizen client of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea renders counsel constitutionally ineffective).2] PCRA Court Memorandum Opinion, 2/20/19, at 1 (unnumbered, footnotes added, some capitalization omitted). At the close of the PCRA hearing, the PCRA court denied Gumbs’s Petition. Gumbs then filed the instant timely appeal, followed by a court- ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal. In his appeal to this Court, Gumbs presents the following question for our review: “Did the [PCRA] court abuse its[] discretion in denying [Gumbs] PCRA relief?” Brief for Appellant at 4. Gumbs claims that Attorney Palissery rendered ineffective assistance by permitting him to plead guilty, without informing him that his plea would result in his deportation, pursuant to Padilla, supra. Brief for Appellant at 10. As this Court has explained, [w]hen reviewing the denial of a PCRA petition, we must determine whether the PCRA court’s order is supported by the record and free of legal error. Generally, we are bound by a PCRA court’s credibility determinations. However, with regard to a court’s legal conclusions, we apply a de novo standard. ____________________________________________ 2 Gumbs alleged in his PCRA Petition that following the entry of his guilty plea, agents with the United States ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals