Com. v. Gill, S. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S78004-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SIMON GILL Appellant No. 1120 MDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA Order June 13, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0004044-1996 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 08, 2014 Appellant, Simon Gill, appeals from the order entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his first petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. Appellant is a Dominican Republic native who attacked another individual with a two-by-four. On January 29, 1997, Appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault. That same day, the court sentenced Appellant to one (1) to three (3) years’ imprisonment. Appellant did not seek direct review. Appellant served his sentence and was subsequently deported, but he illegally re-entered the country. On January 6, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se motion to vacate the guilty plea. In it, Appellant argued plea counsel had erroneously advised J-S78004-14 him that entering the guilty plea would not have any immigration consequences. On February 24, 2014, Appellant submitted another pro se filing, which included his medical records from the night of the assault. Appellant relied on the medical records to establish “he was not the aggressor in the instant case and only pleaded guilty based on counsel’s [incorrect] advice.” (Pro Se Filing, filed 2/24/14, at 1). The court treated the filings as a PCRA petition and appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw and “no-merit” letter. On May 21, 2014, the court permitted counsel to withdraw and issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On June 13, 2014, the court denied PCRA relief. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on July 7, 2014. On July 9, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant complied. To be eligible for PCRA relief, a petitioner must be “currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i). As soon as a petitioner’s sentence is completed, he becomes ineligible for PCRA relief. Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939 (Pa.Super. 2006). Instantly, Appellant admits he has completed his sentence for the underlying crime. (See Pro Se PCRA Petition, filed 1/6/14, at 4; Appellant’s Brief at 2.) Pursuant to Section 9543(a)(1)(i), Appellant is ineligible for relief under the PCRA. On this basis alone, the court properly -2- J-S78004-14 dismissed Appellant’s petition.1 Order affirmed. ____________________________________________ 1 Appellant has also filed a separate application for remand, which raises identical arguments to those set forth in his appellate brief. Consequently, we deny Appellant’s application for remand. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
