Com. v. Aziz, M.
883 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Muhammad Aziz (aka Samuel Lewis/Richard Harris) was convicted by a jury in 1999 of first‑degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Direct appeal was dismissed on August 31, 2000 for failure to file a brief; Aziz alleges trial counsel had promised to file the brief but abandoned the appeal.
- Aziz filed three pro se PCRA petitions: first in 2003 (dismissed as untimely after he withdrew it), second in 2008 (dismissed as untimely; appeal quashed as untimely), and the instant third petition in 2013 seeking reinstatement of direct‑appeal rights nunc pro tunc.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2013 petition as untimely (judgment final Sept. 30, 2000), concluding Aziz did not satisfy any statutory timeliness exception, including the 60‑day rule for newly discovered facts.
- Aziz argued his petition was timely under the "after‑discovered fact" exception (claiming counsel’s abandonment was a newly discovered fact) and that the PCRA’s timeliness rules are unconstitutional and unconstitutionally vague.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely, that Aziz failed to invoke a timeliness exception (including the Bennett abandonment exception), and that PCRA timing provisions are constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aziz) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of third PCRA petition | Third petition timely under 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(ii): counsel abandonment was an "after‑discovered fact" and prior petition was filed within 60 days of discovery | Petition was filed ~12 years after finality; Aziz failed to show discovery of new facts within 60 days or other exception | Petition untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Applicability of Bennett abandonment exception | Bennett applies because trial counsel abandoned Aziz by not filing an appellate brief and Aziz only discovered that fact in 2003 | Aziz did not demonstrate discovery of abandonment within 60 days of filing third petition (2013); Bennett requires timely filing after discovery | Bennett inapplicable because Aziz did not meet the 60‑day requirement for his 2013 petition |
| Ineffective assistance of successive PCRA counsel | Successive PCRA counsel were ineffective for filing Turner/Finley letters and failing to pursue prior counsel’s ineffectiveness | Even if counsel were ineffective, these alleged facts were not newly discovered within 60 days before the 2013 petition; timeliness still not met | Ineffective assistance claims do not rescue untimely petition absent timely‑filed exception |
| Constitutionality of PCRA timeliness rules | PCRA time bars unreasonably foreclose constitutional rights and are vague | Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent upholding PCRA timeliness controls and rejects facial constitutional challenge | Claim lacks merit; Superior Court follows controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (establishes limited rule that counsel’s abandonment can be an "after‑discovered fact" triggering the 60‑day exception when petitioner discovers abandonment and files promptly)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa‑Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffectiveness of counsel generally is not a "fact" for the PCRA after‑discovery exception)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (upholds constitutionality of PCRA time restrictions)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (reinforces validity of PCRA timeliness rules)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate court may affirm PCRA dismissal on any supported ground; discusses timeliness as jurisdictional)