Gonzalez plea in Pennsylvania

2025Accordingly, Gonzalez’s plea was “plainly set forth on the record, understood and agreed to by the parties and approved by the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 643 A.2d 109, 113 (Pa. Super. 1994)) (citations omitted).

2023Gonzalez states that there is no formal process known as "immigration review" and that it was the Court, not Attorney Kirwan, that provided this information to Gonzalez. 14 As to Gonzalez's claim that this Court failed to make sure that he was aware of the immigration consequences of his plea and sentence, this Court directs Gonzalez to the following statement by the Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Rachak, 62 A.3d 389, 395 (Pa. Super. 2012): Although Padilla effectively ended the categorization of immigration consequences as "collateral," it did not saddle courts with the responsibility of d

2018Accordingly, the validity of Gonzalez’s plea has not been previously litigated. -4- J-S69026-18 In Commonwealth v. Allen, 732 A.2d 582, 587 (Pa. 1999), our Supreme Court stated: Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused appellant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea.

2018Allen, supra. Gonzalez next asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating factors at sentencing.

2017Id. at 25. -4- J-S07041-17 “In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court's determination is supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 114 A.3d 401, 409 (Pa. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2016See Commonwealth v. Willis, 68 A.3d 997, 1009 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding “the mere fact Appellant was taking prescribed psychotropic medication at the time of his plea does not, of itself, result in the conclusion he was unable to enter a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent guilty plea.”). -7- J-S70019-16 custody.

2015The substantial question in Gonzalez’s brief is an “excessive sentence claim[ ] in conjunction with an assertion that the court did not consider mitigating factors.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1272 (Pa.Super.2013) (en banc ). 38 *732 We determine, however, that Gonzalez’s excessiveness claim is devoid of merit.