Com. v. Saleem, M.
Com. v. Saleem, M. No. 645 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Appellant Mohammad Sohail Saleem pled guilty to indecent assault and harassment involving two employees of his business; trial court ordered a sexually violent predator assessment and later sentenced him to 21 months to 10 years imprisonment.
- Saleem claimed his plea was induced by counsel’s representation that he would be immediately deported to Pakistan as part of the plea arrangement.
- After sentencing Saleem filed post-sentence motions alleging ineffective assistance; the trial court denied them and Saleem filed a pro se PCRA petition asserting his plea was unknowing and involuntary.
- PCRA counsel raised the deportation-based claim at an evidentiary hearing; the PCRA court found no promise of immediate deportation and denied relief.
- On appeal Saleem raised: (1) trial counsel coerced/misled him into an involuntary plea; (2) plea was unlawfully induced and he is innocent; (3) sentencing judge was biased; and (4) PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/raise meritorious claims.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s analysis that Saleem’s claims lacked arguable merit or were waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saleem) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective causing an involuntary plea | Counsel promised immediate deportation; plea therefore unknowing/coerced | No promise of immediate deportation; counsel’s advice within competent range; Commonwealth did not object to deportation | Denied — claim lacked arguable merit; plea not shown involuntary |
| Whether plea was unlawfully induced and appellant is innocent | Plea induced by deportation promise; surveillance video would show innocence | No such inducement; Commonwealth complied with agreement to not object to deportation | Denied — inducement not established; claim lacks merit |
| Whether sentencing judge demonstrated bias | Judge made prejudicial hypotheticals/comments about deportation and Pakistan | Claim was not raised below and is therefore unpreserved for appeal | Unreviewable on appeal — waived under Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) |
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for not raising claims | PCRA counsel failed to investigate and omit arguable claims (bias, other issues) | Counsel did raise the deportation-based challenge; bias claim was not raised below and cannot be raised for first time on appeal | Denied — no arguable merit or claim waived; PCRA counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 114 A.3d 401 (Pa. 2015) (standard for reviewing PCRA denials and remand where PCRA court opinion inadequate)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 105 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2014) (ineffectiveness claims tied to guilty pleas require showing plea was involuntary or unknowing)
- Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012 (Pa. Super. 2014) (three-part ineffectiveness test)
- Commonwealth v. Steele, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (failure to satisfy any prong of ineffectiveness test is dispositive)
- Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2002) (voluntariness of plea depends on competence of counsel’s advice)
- Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2011) (presumption of counsel effectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 867 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2005) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (right to proceed pro se after appropriate colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (ineffective-assistance-of-PCRA-counsel claims cannot be raised for first time on appeal)