Com. v. Abdullah, N.
Com. v. Abdullah, N. No. 2029 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- Appellant Naree Abdullah was convicted in 1996 of second‑degree murder, robbery and conspiracy for a 1993 North Philadelphia market robbery that resulted in the store owner’s death; he received an aggregate life sentence.
- Abdullah’s direct appeal rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc; his convictions and sentence were ultimately affirmed and his petitions for allowance of appeal were denied in the early 2000s.
- In 2002 Abdullah filed a timely PCRA petition asserting co‑defendant recantation; after an evidentiary hearing the petition was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal.
- In December 2013 Abdullah filed a second (technically third) PCRA petition, claiming newly discovered evidence via an affidavit from Zahir Wise asserting Abdullah had an alibi (leading a religious service) at the time of the crime; he later abandoned a separate affidavit from Gregory Womak.
- The PCRA court filed a notice of intent to dismiss the 2013 petition as untimely and ultimately dismissed it on May 17, 2016, finding Abdullah failed to satisfy the statutory timeliness exception for newly discovered facts; Abdullah appealed only the court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Abdullah's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing the 2013 petition without an evidentiary hearing | Wise's affidavit is newly discovered evidence that satisfies the Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) timeliness exception and was presented within 60 days of discovery | Petition is patently untimely; Wise is merely a newly willing source for facts Abdullah already knew or could have discovered with due diligence | Court affirmed dismissal: petition untimely; Wise’s affidavit does not satisfy the ‘‘new facts’’ exception and no hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (defines the two‑part "new facts" timeliness test and distinguishes it from an after‑discovered‑evidence claim)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (focus of the Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception is newly discovered facts, not newly willing sources)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (elements for substantive after‑discovered‑evidence relief under the PCRA)