J-S82033-17

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

** Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHAKIR ERRAFAQ 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 896 WDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 19, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-10-CR-0002400-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STEVENS*, P.J.E., and STRASSBURGER**, J.

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 9, 2018

Respectfully, I take judicial notice that on January 10, 2018, Governor 

Tom Wolf signed a statewide disaster declaration recognizing the seriousness 

Pennsylvania residents face from illegal drugs, specifically opioids. 

Granting additional rights to a resident-alien convicted felon who has 

sold opioids and preventing his deportation in this case jeopardizes the safety 

of our Pennsylvania citizens, flies in the face of Pennsylvania policy on opioids,

and insults all law-abiding American citizens. The detainment and deportation 

should proceed.
J-S82033-17

- 2 -

 The Majority concludes Appellant met the newly-discovered facts 

exception to the PCRA1timeliness requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(1)(ii). Specifically, the Majority finds Appellant met the exception by 

pleading he was not aware of the possible deportation consequences of 

entering his guilty plea on May 7, 2015, until ICE2took him into custody on 

January 19, 2017. Thus, the Majority remands for a hearing on Appellant’s 

underlying claim that guilty plea counsel was ineffective in advising him to 

plead guilty without informing him that he could be deported. 

Appellant was satisfied with his plea and now makes a mockery of our 

legal system by claiming no one alerted him to the potential adverse 

immigration consequences. For example, there is no indication Appellant even 

informed his guilty plea counsel of his immigration status, and, thus, Appellant 

uses our legal system to short-circuit valid, existing immigration laws to delay 

what should be his inevitable deportation.

Appellant, who is a citizen of Morocco and a resident-alien of the United 

States, pled guilty to selling opioids and rightfully is facing deportation. The 

PCRA court properly concluded that Appellant did not exercise due diligence 

in discovering the alleged new fact (possible deportation).

____________________________________________

1 Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 

2

ICE refers to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
J-S82033-17

- 3 -

As the PCRA court found, “nothing in [Appellant’s] petition supports the 

notion that he could not have discovered the deportation consequences, or 

the possible deportation consequences, of his conviction through the exercise 

of due diligence during the time for filing a [timely PCRA] petition.” PCRA 

Court Opinion, filed 3/27/17, at 5. The PCRA court’s determination is free of 

legal error. See Commonwealth v. Weatherill, 24 A.3d 435, 438 

(Pa.Super. 2011). 

It is axiomatic that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and Appellant’s 

claim that it is unreasonable for a layperson to be aware of the law should be 

rejected. 

For our Court to agree with Appellant and set such a policy will lead to 

a plethora of illegitimate claims to set aside a knowing, voluntary, and 

intelligent guilty plea. 

 Thus, I would affirm the PCRA court’s order denying Appellant’s PCRA 

petition on the basis it was untimely filed, and would direct the detainment 

and deportation to proceed.

The learned PCRA judge’s decision should be upheld. I respectfully 

dissent.