Com. v. Ali, M.
Com. v. Ali, M. No. 135 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 11, 2017Background
- Mustafa Ali was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of robbery, carrying a firearm without a license, and recklessly endangering another person; sentenced to two consecutive life terms without parole plus concurrent 16–32 years.
- Direct appeal affirmed by Superior Court; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Ali filed a timely pro se PCRA petition; after appointment then waiver of counsel (Grazier hearing), he proceeded pro se in the PCRA proceeding.
- PCRA court denied relief; Ali appealed, raising numerous claims including judicial delay, consideration of an untimely Commonwealth filing, pretextual arrest/probable cause, due process/jurisdiction, prosecutorial misconduct, Fourth Amendment delay, exclusion of psychiatric testimony, voluntariness of statements, and ineffective assistance for presenting multiple defenses.
- Superior Court held most claims previously litigated or waived; reviewed remaining claims (judicial delay, consideration of untimely filing, and counsel’s strategic choices) and affirmed the PCRA court’s denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Ali's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Judicial delay by Judge Minehart | Delay in disposition was inordinate and an abuse of discretion | Disposition delay was constitutional and not abusive | No relief; court found no unconstitutional delay |
| 2. Court considered Commonwealth’s untimely answer | Court abused discretion by considering Commonwealth’s late filing | Consideration did not prejudice Ali and was within court’s discretion | No relief; untimely filing did not prejudice Ali |
| 3. Arrest pretextual / lacked probable cause | Arrest was pretextual and lacked probable cause (Fourth Amendment) | Issue previously litigated on direct appeal; probable cause upheld | No relief; claim previously litigated and rejected on direct appeal |
| 4. Ineffective assistance: counsel arguing multiple defenses | Trial/appellate counsel ineffective for presenting multiple defenses | Counsel’s strategy was reasonable; no prejudice shown | No relief; counsel not ineffective for advancing multiple defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (on-the-record waiver of counsel must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- Commonwealth v. Berry, 877 A.2d 479 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for PCRA court’s factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA court findings will not be disturbed if record supports them)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2017) (counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim)