Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Commonwealth v. Dandrade

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 24, 2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
JORGE DANDRADE, SR., Appellant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 29, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0000661-2012 CP-48-CR-0000702-2012.

BEFORE: ALLEN, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, [*] JJ.

MEMORANDUM

STRASSBURGER, J.

Jorge Dandrade, Sr. (Appellant) appeals from an order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are as follows. Appellant entered an open guilty plea to counts of burglary, criminal trespass, and receiving stolen property, in exchange for the Commonwealth's withdrawal of dozens of other counts. Appellant was subsequently sentenced to an aggregate term of 2.5 to 10 years of incarceration. A motion for reconsideration of sentence was denied, and Appellant filed no direct appeal. Several months later, the PCRA court received a letter from Appellant complaining of plea counsel's effectiveness. The PCRA court treated the letter as a timely-filed PCRA petition and appointed counsel, who amended the petition. After a hearing, the PCRA court entered an order denying Appellant's petition. Appellant timely appealed that order.

On appeal, Appellant claims that the PCRA court erred in denying him PCRA relief on two bases. First, he claims that he has shown that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because (a) he was advised that he would receive a lesser sentence than he did receive, and (b) plea counsel failed to advise him of the potential deportation consequences he faced by pleading guilty. Appellant's Brief at 10. Second, Appellant claims that plea counsel was ineffective in failing to file a direct appeal challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Id. at 11-13.

Following our review of the certified record, the briefs for the parties, and the relevant law, we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable Anthony S. Beltrami thoroughly and correctly addresses and disposes of Appellant's issues and supporting arguments. Accordingly, we adopt the PCRA court's opinion of July 29, 2013 as our own, and affirm the PCRA court's disposition of Appellant's issues on the basis of that opinion. The parties shall attach a copy of the PCRA court's July 29, 2013 opinion to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.