from the Judgment of Sentence August 25, 2016 In the Court of
Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s):
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.
A. Monjaras-Amaya appeals from the judgment of sentence,
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. After
our review, we affirm.
January 7, 2016, Monjaras-Amaya was charged with resisting
arrest,  loitering and prowling at nighttime,
use/possession of drug paraphernalia,  and purchase of
alcoholic beverage by a minor. Monjaras-Amaya waived his
preliminary hearing, and the charges were bound over for
trial under docket CP-09-CR-0001085-2016.
March 23, 2016, Monjaras-Amaya was arrested for driving under
the influence (DUI) and related offenses. He waived his
preliminary hearing, and these charges were bound over
for trial at docket number CP-09-CR-0002738-2016.
to a plea agreement, the Commonwealth nolle prossed
the resisting arrest charge on docket CP-09-CR-0001085-2016.
On August 25, 2016, Monjaras-Amaya appeared before the
Honorable Wallace H. Bateman, Jr., and entered a plea of
guilty to all of the remaining charges on both dockets. Prior
to entering his plea, Monjaras-Amaya reviewed a written
colloquy with his attorney, and he initialed and signed it.
entry of his guilty plea, the court sentenced Monjaras-Amaya
to 72 hours to 6 months' incarceration, a $1, 000 fine,
and a concurrent term of 12 months' probation. No
post-sentence motions were filed. Monjaras-Amaya filed timely
notices of appeal on both dockets,  as well as a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). He raises two issues for our review:
1. Whether [Monjaras-Amaya's] acknowledgement of the risk
of collateral immigration consequences made his guilty plea
"knowing" and "voluntary" even while his
guilty plea indicated profound confusion?
2. Whether Pennsylvania's warnings of possible
immigration consequences are sufficient to meet the
requirements of Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356
Appellant's Brief, at 5.
argues that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty
plea because the colloquy indicated that he was not apprised
of the immigration consequences. He also argues that
Pennsylvania's "approach to immigration consequences
warnings" does not meet the federal standard articulated
law makes clear that by entering a plea of guilty, a
defendant waives his right to challenge on direct appeal all
nonjurisdictional defects except the legality of the sentence
and the validity of the plea. Commonwealth v.
Pantalion, 957 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Pa. Super. 2008). In
order to preserve an issue related to a guilty plea, an
appellant must either "object[ ] at the sentence
colloquy or otherwise raise[ ] the issue at the sentencing
hearing or through a post-sentence motion."
Commonwealth v. D'Collanfield, 805 A.2d 1244,
1246 (Pa. Super. 2002). See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1),
(B)(1)(a)(i); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) ("Issues not
raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal.").
D'Collanfield, we held appellant's issue
challenging his guilty plea was waived since it was not
raised at the colloquy, at the sentencing hearing, or through
post-sentence motions. See Commonwealth v. Lincoln,
72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013) ("A defendant
wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on
direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or
file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of
sentencing. Failure to employ either measure results in
waiver.") (citations omitted). Moreover, "[a]
party cannot rectify the failure to preserve an issue by
proffering it in response to a Rule 1925(b) order."
Commonwealth v. Kohan, 825 A.2d 702, 706 (Pa. Super.
2003) (emphasis ...