### J - S20042
- 17

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

v.
TAI THACH

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2641 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 6, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP
- 51 - CR
- 0004527
- 2013
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J. and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2017 Tai Thach appeals, nunc pro tunc , from the judgment of sentence imposed on February 6, 2014 , in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, after Thach pled guilty to charges of aggr avated assault and conspiracy. 1 

### Thach was sentenced to a term of five to ten years’ incarceration. In this appeal, Thach claims his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary in that it lacked the mandatory elements for a guilty plea, the Cambodian interp reter lacked the ability to translate and he was not informed of the possibility he would be deported after he had served his sentence. Counsel has filed an Anders 2 

### brief along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. After

____________________________________________ 1 

### 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a) and 903, respectively.
2 

### Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1981); Commonwealth v. McClendon , 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981).

### J - S20042
- 17

- 2
-

a thorough review of the submissi ons by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Initially, we must examine counsel’s motion to withdraw. Counsel having filed a petition to withdraw, we reiterate that “[w]hen presented with an Anders brief , this court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Daniels , 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2010) , citing Commonwealth v. Goodwin , 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007) ( en b anc ) (citation omitted). In order for counsel to withdraw from an appeal pursuant to Anders , certain requirements must be met, and counsel must: (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth counsel's conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state counsel's reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Id. , quoting Commonwealth v. Santiago , 602 Pa. 159, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (2009)
. If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical requir ements of Anders , this Court will deny the petition to withdraw and remand the case with appropriate instructions ( e.g . , directing counsel either to comply with Anders or file an advocate's brief on Appellant's behalf). By contrast, if counsel's petition and brief satisfy Anders , we will then undertake our own review of the appeal to determine if it is wholly frivolous. If the appeal is frivolous, we will grant the withdrawal petition and affirm the judgment of sentence. However, if there are non
- frivolous issues, we will deny the petition and remand for the filing of an advocate's brief.

### J - S20042
- 17

- 3
-

Commonwealth v. Tukhi , 149 A.3d 881, 886 (Pa. Super. 2016) quoting Commonwealth v. Wrecks , 931 A.2d 717, 720
- 721 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). Commonwealth v. Blauser , 166 A.3d 428, 431 (Pa. Super. 2017). Counsel has satisfied all of the requirements needed to fulfil l his duty. Additionally, following remand, 3 

### counsel has certified he presented Thach with copies of all relevant material translated by a certified t ranslator into Cambodian to ensure Thach understood the proceedings. Thach has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Because counsel has fulfilled his duty to Thach and Thach has filed no reply, we will now examine the substance of the claim to determine if any of the issues are not wholly frivolous. First and foremost, Thach’s claims all address the voluntariness of his guilty plea. Thach did not seek to withdraw his plea e ither prior to or after sentencing. Therefore, all issues have been waived by failing to preserve the claim below. See 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.”) See also Commonwealth v. Monjaras - Amay a , 163 A.3d 466, 468
- 69 (Pa. Super. 2017) ( In order to preserve an issue related to a guilty plea, an appellant must either object at the plea colloquy or file a post
- sentence motion seeking to withdraw his plea.) Because the claims have not been preserved, we have
no thing to review, making those claims wholly frivolous.

____________________________________________ 3 

### This panel previously remanded this matter with instructions to counsel to either certify Thach had been given a certified translation of the Anders brief or to provide Thach with a certified translation of the Anders brief.

### J - S20042
- 17

- 4 -

However, even if the claims had been properly preserved, Thach would not be entitled to relief. In this regard , we rely on the trial court’s opinion which explains why Thach’s cl aims are substantively without merit. We highlight the facts that Thach responded appropriately to all questioning during the guilty plea, a fact that demonstrates the interpreter was competent and that Thach understood what was said at the hearing . Addi tionally, the certified record demonstrat es that Thach was, in fact, told of the risk of deportation. Specifically, t here is a notice of that possibility in the written guilty plea colloquy that was translated for Thach and signed by him . Further, at sen tencing, Thach asked for consideration of a sentence of less than one year, which would make it less likely that he would be deported. Finally, Thach does not indicate what element or elements were missing from the colloquy, thereby waiving that issue, as well. Nonetheless, the trial court noted that reviewed in toto , the oral and written colloquies addressed all of the guilty plea requirements. In the event of further proceedings, the parties shall attach a copy of the trial court opinion, dated December 1, 2016, pages 4 - 6, which discuss the substantive aspects of Thach’s claims. In light of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of sentence. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Application to withdraw as counsel granted. Judge Bowes concurs i n the result. President Judge Emeritus Elliott concurs in the result.

### J - S20042
- 17

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11 /15/2017• On pa ge 3, di r ectl y und e rne ath th e ab ove qu o ted l angu ag e , D e fend ant si gn e d his n ame. • O n pa g e 3 , it states "I H A V E RE A D A LL O F THE A B OV E, OR M Y LA W YE R REA D IT TO ME. I UN D ERSTAN D IT
. MY ANSWE R S A RE T R U E AND C O RRECT ." • On pa ge 3 , a par a graph entitl e d , " RISK OF DEP O RATION ( If an Ali e n ) , " and th e fo llo wi ng s en ten ce : " I kn o w that ifl am n ot a U ni te d St at e s C iti ze n , it i s p ossi bl e that I might b e d e port ed ifl ple a d g uilty to the cri rn e(s) char g ed a g ainst me. " • On pa ge 1, D e fend an t "c an rea d and w ri t e E n g lish as i nt e rp r et e d " w i th the w o rd s "as interpr et ed" h andw ritt en o n th e fo rm by De fen dant 's att o rney . A ddi ti on a ll y , the wri tten g u i lty plea fo rm c o nt ai n ed th e foll ow in g: part o f th e re c or d
. Th e w ritt e n g uilty plea fo rm co nt ained all si x o f th e ar eas required by Rule 5 9 0. D efe nd ant re vie w e d and
. s ign e d a writt e n g ui lty pl ea form , whi c h w as do cketed and mad e 1. D e fendant R e view e d And S igned A Writt e n Gu i l ty Pl ea Fo rm F AC T UA L BA C KGROUND was n o t ad v ised a s to his potenti al d epo rt ati o n un til after s e nten ci ng. l a cked the ability to translat e fr o m Eng lish t o C amb o d i an an d V ie tnam e se , and ( 3) D efe nd ant (1) th e ple a lac ked the mandato ry el e ment s requ ir ed b y P a. R.Crim .P
. 5 9 0 , ( 2) the int e rprete r appe al, De fe nd an t cl ai ms th at h is guilty pl e a was no t knowi n g , i ntell i g e nt and v olun tary b e c au s e tri al co urt s ent e n c ed De fe nd ant to a guide lin e sentence o f fiv e t o t e n year s o f in car c eration. O n D e fend ant T ai Th ac h pl ea de d g uilty t o agg ravate d assault and criminal c o nspirac y . The 

## DEC O 1 2016 Criminal Appeals Unit First Judicial District

of PA . 1111111111111111111111111 787 1 240761 OP IN ION T A I THA C H 2 641 ED A 2 016 CP

- 51-CR-00 0 4527

- 2013 

# FILED CP- 51 - C R-0 00 4527- 2013 Comm. v . T h a ch , T ai V S. O p inio n C OMMONW EA LTH OF P ENNSYLV A N IA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON P LE AS O F PHIL A D EL PHIA COUNTY

FIRS T WDI C I A L D I STR IC T OF P ENNSY L VA NI A

T RIA L DIVISI O N - C RIMINA L Circulated 10/13/2017 10:19 AM

### - 2 -

Defendant: Yes. The Court : And did y ou und e r s t and th e fo rm as i t was translate d to y ou ? D e fendant: Yes
. Th e Court : Wa s this fo rm tr ans lated o rall y to y ou ? Defendant: Yes. Th e Court : And I have in my hand a writte n guilty plea form
. I see a si g nature that

say s "Si g n ature o f th e defendan t. " Is th at yo ur sign ature ? D e fendant: Yes. The Court : Can y ou underst and the Cambodian lan g uage? Defendant: No. The Court: Can y ou re ad and write th e Cambodian language ? Defendant: No. T h e Court : Can you re ad and write th e E nglish lan g u ag e? Defendant: No form al edu cati on . Th e Court : How far d i d y ou go in school ? D e fendant: Forty-o ne . Mr
. Birley: Thirty-one ? D e fendant: I'm 41. T he Court : Mr. Th a ch , how old are you t o d ay? oral colloquy betw een the trial court and Def e ndant includ e d the follo wi n g exchan g es: the trial court utili z ed an official court reporter, Danielle Kao , to interpret for Defendant. Th e ensure th at Defendant understood the entir e guil ty pl e a hearin g . During the guilty plea hearin g , In addition to the written guilty ple a form , th e trial court conduct e d an oral colloquy to 2
. The Trial Court ' s Colloquy of Defendant During The Guilty Plea Hearing

### -3-

Mr. Birley: You have ten days to petition to His Honor to change his mind about that

sentence and 3 0 days to appeal based on the facts that we reviewed. If you Defendant: I understand. Mr. Birley: Mr. Thach , the Honorable Judge Anders just sentenced you to 5 to 10 y ears

for aggravated assault and conspiracy. Do you understand the sentence? · of his appellate rights. Finally, after the trial court imposed its sentence, Defendant ' s attorney advised Defendant Id. at 10. Defendant: I leave it up to you Your Honor , what you think is right. The Court: Mr. Thach, is there anything you want to say prior to me imposing sentence

today? court gave Defendant the opportunity to speak during the sentencing hearing: aren ' t considered, the fact that he will be remo v ed from his children. " N.T
. 02/06/2014 at 5
. The trial deportation. So when you consider the guidelines in this case, those kinds of collateral consequences trial court that " as Your Honor is aware , any sentenc e that is over a y ear is likely to cause my client Vakouv, to interpret for Defendant. At the sentencing hearing, Defendant's attorney argued to the During the sentencing hearing , the trial court utilized an official court reporter, Leende 3. The Sentencing Hearing N.T. 12/06/2013 at 3

- 4, 9-10. Defendant : Guilty. Court crier : Charging you with criminal conspirac y, how do you plead? Defendant : Guilty. Court crier: Mr. Thach, on this common pleas Docket No. CP-51-CR-0004527-2013,

charging with aggravated assault, how do you plead? Defendant: Yes. The Court: Mr. Thach , having heard the Commonwealth's recitation of the facts it

believes it can prove at trial beyond a re asonable doubt, do you agree with that st atement of facts?

### -4-

Co mmonw e alth v. Eichin ge r, 108 A. 3d 821 , 832 (P a . 2 014 )
.

In order fo r a guilty plea t o b e constitution all y v alid , the guilty pl e a coll o qu y mu s t affirmati v el y sh ow th at th e de fe nd an t und e r s tood wh at the ple a conn o ted and i ts con s equen c e s . Thi s determination i s to be mad e by examin i ng the totality o f the circum s tance s surroundin g the entry of th e ple a . T hus , ev en thou g h the r e is an omi ssion or defect in the g uilty plea coll o qu y, a pl e a of g uilty w ill not be de em ed in valid i f the cir c um s tance s surr o und i ng the entry of th e pl ea di s clo se that th e d e fend ant h a d a full und e r s t andin g o f th e natur e and con se quence s o f hi s pl e a and that h e kno w in g l y and v oluntaril y d e cid e d t o ent er the pl ea . standard w h e n ev al uating w heth e r a guilty ple a i s kn owin g and vo luntary : 58 9 , 591 ( Pa
. Supe r. Ct. 20 0 5 )
. The Penn sy l vania Supr e me Court h as e x pl ai n e d th e follo w in g the jurisd i cti on o f the court , or th e l eg ality o f th e sen ten c e . " 

### Commo n wealt h v . Stewa rt

, 8 6 7 A. 2 d "A plea of g uilty fo recloses chall e nges t o all matt e r s exc e p t the voluntarin es s of th e plea , M atters Complain e d of on A ppe al , at 

# , 1. D e fend ant w a s n o t a d v i se d a s to his pot e ntial dep o rt ati o n until a ft er s ent e n ci n g . 

### See Stat emen t o f the interpreter lacked the ability to translat e from English t o Camb o dian an d Vietnamese , and (3 ) voluntary b e cause ( 1) the plea lacked the mand at ory ele m ents required b y Pa.R.Cri m.P. 5 9 0, (2) On appe al , Defend ant clai ms th at his guilty ple a w as n o t kn ow ing , intelli g ent and DISCUSSION 

### I d at 12. Mr
. Birl ey: And I'll s p e ak w i th y ou in a seco nd abo ut th at. Defendant: Ok ay. 

### Mr. Birle y: Ri g ht. I'm as king you , if yo u unde rs t and the need t o a sk fo r those th i n g s . De fe ndan t: Ho w can I write? I don't kn ow ho w to writ e anythin g .

w is h to do e ither of thos e th i ng s , th ey must be done by in w riting b y an attorne y an d i f y ou w ant th e m d o n e, ju s t t e ll me w i thin th at ti me peri o d. D o you underst and that ? - ·- - - -- - - - -- -~ -- · - - - - · - - - - --- - --- -- - - - - · -- - - - ·

_ .__ ._. _., . _ _. .. ·

_ . •1 - ·· · · · · · . : · · ; ." ·_ .;. , . · • . , . . · . . · : · ., .1,· c · · · · . ·~ . · · , _. ; . · · . • · · · . : · . : . . · :
- . :...C:..... ......:....... - · ·· . .;__ . _;_: ~ c.

.. , .:

_-';

_ · . _ _ . - . . __ - · · . · . · - · . . · · · · · - - -'<- .c .-5- Additionally, "Pennsylvania Rul e of Criminal Procedure 590 requires the court to i nquire into the following areas during the plea colloqu y : (1) th e nature of the charges; (2) the factual basis of the plea ; (3) the right to trial by jury ; (4) th e presumption of innocence; ( 5 ) the permissible range of sentences; and ( 6) the judge 's authority to depart from any recommended
sentence
. " 

### Commonweal t h v. Ban e y, 860 A.2d 127, 131 ( P a . Super
. 2004)
. Here, before entering his plea , Defendant r e viewed th e entire writt e n guilty plea form , which contained e ach of th e six ar e as required b y Pa.R. C rim.P. 590
. He also signed the plea form on the last page in order to indicate that he understood ev erything in the plea form
. During the guilty plea hearing , the trial court c o lloquied Defendant about the content s of the written guilty plea form , and he affirmed that he und e rstood e a c h of the ar e a s requir e d by Rule 5 9 0
. Defendant signed the written guilty plea form onl y after a Cambodian in te rpreter translated the entire form for him. The trial court also conducted the entire guilty plea and sentencing hearings with an interpr e ter
. During thes e hearings, Defendant answ e red each o f the trial court' s questions without hesitation and in a m anner th at w as r e spon s i v e to each que s tion. Defendant answered "Yes" when a sked ifhe unde r stood th e Cambodian l anguage. Defendant also answered " Yes " when aske d if the written g uilty plea form w as tran slated orall y to him
. Wh e n asked by the trial c ourt if he und e rstood the tran s l ation o f the form, Def e ndant ag ain ans w ered

" Yes." Defendant never p aused or reque s t e d fo r anything s tated by the tr an slat o r to be reinterpreted or further translated. Finally, Defend ant provid e d answ e rs that indicated that he full y understood each of the questions that were int e rp r et e d for him. For e xample , when his attorn ey ad v ised him of his appellat e right s, Defendant int e rj e cted , "How c an I writ e? I don' t kno w how to write anything." Defendant was also informed about the ri s k o f deportation
. First , D e fendant's interpreter orall y translated th e written waiver form , which contain e d a para g raph on page 3 in bold , c apital · • · " " · ~- -- - · . ; .. ·.. .

;:_ . .. ; . • . : . . . : , _.

__ . ,' · ' · ; . ; , . : . ~~ . , . : . ::,;.
. _ .. . __ - ·
.. - ~. · · - · -- · -- - - · ; ~ .. · ·· · · ·· · - . . . • • •. ; - ···-··· ·· . '

. .' - . . .' -· · - . . · ·. · · - : · · -. • .. , .- , ·- · • . ~ .: · -•· ·- ···--·- ·) < - : . , _'

_ . , , ·. ·- -· · ·.· . . '

. · · ~ . · - -.:.'
- - · . , . · .. , , , i .. · . _ . .- • .i..
- ' , _.. : .. -- I' "

. . · ~ • · - . .. . . • · .:.. - : c.;-6- 1 C oun se l mu s t i n fo rm a no n citi zen d efe nd an t whe th er a ple a c arri e s a ri sk o f d e port ation
. Padilla v. Ke ntuc ky, 130 S.C t. 1 47 3 , 1486 (20 1 0 )
. When the po t e ntial de port ation is u n cl ear, coun sel ne ed onl y a dvi s e of the risk of de portation
. Id. Wh e n th e de port ati o n co n se qu ences are clear , counse l h as a duty t o give a ccurat e advi ce con cerning d e po rt ati o n . Id. Th e Pe nns y l vani a Su p e rio r Co urt ha s he l d that Padilla r equires that c o un se l mu s t inform th e cli ent that a ple a makes th em de p o rtabl e , no t that d e port atio n i s a certain ty
. Co mmon w ealth v . Esc o ba r , 70 A.3 d 838 , 84 1 ( Pa. Su pe r. Ct. 2013 ) ( d efe ndant ad equate ly in formed of p o t ential for d eportation by d efe nd ant ' s e xec uti o n o fa writt e n g u il ty pl ea fo rm i nd i cati n g that he und erst o od th e ri sk of d e p o rt ation an d b y stat e m ents b y coun sel re gar d ing th e p ossi b ility o f d e p ortatio n)
.



### ND E RS, JUDG E Dat e d : De ce mber 1 , 2 016 B Y TH E C OURT : B as ed on the foregoin g , the judgm e nt o f s e n te nce should be affirm e d
. C ONCL U SION D e fend ant and to int e rpret durin g the gu i lty plea and se nten ci n g hearings. and (4 ) th e us e of an offi c i al court i nterprete r to tran s lat e the wri tt e n g u i lty pl ea form fo r the gu i lty plea h earin g, (3) D efe ndant' s statement s du ring th e g uilty pl ea and sent e n c ing hearing s, based up on ( 1 ) th e writt en g u i l ty ple a form , ( 2 ) th e trial c ou rt ' s oral collo q u y o f De fe ndant durin g Th us, De fe n d ant kno wi n g ly , int ellig entl y an d volunt ari l y plead e d g uilty t o the char ges C t. 20 13). 1 that h e face d a risk of depo rtatio n . 

### S ee Com mo nw e a l th v. Es c oba r, 70 A.3 d 838 , 84 1 (Pa. Sup er. Defendan t w as ad e quat el y i nfo rmed - b efo r e he pl ea d e d g u ilty and al s o afte r he w as se nten ced - rem oval fr om the country i f he r ec ei v ed a sen t enc e i n exc e ss of o n e y e ar o f incarc e rati on . Th us , trial c o urt s hould c o n si de r the co ll ate ral cons eque n c e s that D e fen dant face d in th at h e risked char g ed again s t m e." S econd , duri n g th e s enten ci n g h earin g, D e fendant 's attorne y argued th at the n o t a U n i t e d S tate s Ci tizen , i t i s p oss i ble that I mi g ht be dep o rt e d ifl ple a d gu i lty t o the crime ( s) l e tter s th at sai d , " RI SK OF D E POR TATIO N , " and th e fo ll ow i ng s enten ce : " I kno w th at if I amR\ay
. D ri o, Esquir e Law Clerk to on. Daniel J. Anders r , I I _. . CJC Mailbox Hugh J. Bums, Jr., E squire Philadelphia District Attorney ' s Office 3 S. Penn Square Philadel p hia, PA 19107 Regular Mail Stephen O'Hanlon, Esquire 2 Penn Center 1500 JFK Blvd. , Ste. 1850 Philadelphia, PA 1 9102

DATED: Type of Service: Appellee: Type of Service: Attorney for Appellan t : I hereby certify that I am this day caused to be served the foregoing Order upon this person(s): PROOF OF SERVICE Comm. v. Tai Thach CP-51-CR-0004527-2013 2641 EDA 2016 

## . 

# . """ · · - · · - ~ ;; ;· - · "'" ~ - - - · · ·- - - · - · · - - -- · ·-· "
-- - - - - ·· · •. · . --- · · · . . - · - · · .. - - · . - · - . - -· · · . - · . : . - · .. · -- · - - · - - -- -" · · · . -··· · ···· -- - - - - - - - · - - · . " 'y° · · - - - ."

. . -·· - · .. ,.. _ : . · - ·- ·- · ' · - _ ..• -:- • • · -' ·-· · - . · - · ·· <- · > · . · , '•

_ : "

__ : ; · , · . . , . ·_ ·. . · ·· · - · -- • ~· . • : _ · < .·. : .., . ·. . - : : .: . - . , , :- • .. ., . ·,: . : ' " " ' · ... . 

# ....... Deputy Prothonotary '

. SUPERIOR COUllT OPPA PER CURIAM The application to reinstate appeal is GRANTED. This Court's November 2, 2016 dismissal Order is VACATED, and the above-captioned appeal is REINSTATED. The Brief for Appellant is due by December 29, 2016. Failure to file a brief by this date will result in re-dismissal of the appeal, without warning. Appellant's request for copies of the trial court dockets is GRANTED. The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas is directed to provide Appellant with a copy of the relevant dockets. Appellant's request for transcripts is DENIED, without prejudice for Appellant to file proper requests with the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. 

# II II II I 

# II II 

# I II 

# II /Ill /I I/I 7871219841 

### ORDER CP- 5 J-CR

- 0604861

- 2001 Co Superior Court~~d:~

Thorpe , Jertion 

### Appellant JERLION THORPE



## v. No. 1938 EDA 2016 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA



### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT Filed 11/29/2016 --- - ~ -- - · .. - ·, _. - - ·;~,· ·~ : ·-~ - -~~~ · _. .· ;

_. __ .. __ ., . · .. · ,. · · • .· · .. - . . - - ~ : . ._. · :.· - : - - - -- -- - -· · .. ~ . - - - - -· -- ·! ·· - - ··"' · • . .. • . . .. ... .. , - ·- · · .. _:::z r: - ·- . - · ~ · J ~~ - -- ~ · .· -· ·:· · · . • , . :

__ ,, , - - s- . · . ". · · •• : · :: •• • ~. - - . : ·.- .- . • . . · . · ~ -: - · · -·. , , · .. .- -- .· - ,-; _ _. .. --· · -