Com. v. Wakeel, H., Com. v. Wakeel, H. No. 1772 EDA 2016

Defendant Hakim Abdul Wakeel was convicted in 2009 of multiple felonies arising from a July 26, 2007 armed robbery; acquitted of homicide.
Co-defendant/witness Julio Lopez testified at trial identifying Wakeel and denied any promise or plea agreement with the Commonwealth in exchange for his testimony.
Lopez later pleaded guilty in a separate case and was sentenced; post-conviction he gave inconsistent statements and ultimately recanted earlier denials, claiming he had been promised a particular sentence for cooperating.
Wakeel filed an amended PCRA petition alleging his trial and PCRA counsel were ineffective for failing to preserve/present a Brady claim (failure to disclose an understanding between Lopez and the Commonwealth).
The PCRA court held evidentiary hearings, found Lopez’s recantation and the private investigator’s statement unreliable, and determined any alleged deal either did not exist or was not material given substantial other evidence (victim ID, cell‑phone location data, blood‑stained boots).
Superior Court affirmed denial of the PCRA petition, agreeing the Brady-based ineffective‑assistance claim lacked arguable merit and no reasonable probability of a different outcome existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Brady-based claim underlying counsel’s ineffectiveness had arguable merit and prejudiced the outcome	Commonwealth withheld impeachment evidence (an understanding/promise to Lopez); counsel should have discovered/raised it	Lopez had an undisclosed understanding with Commonwealth; if disclosed, jury would have doubted Lopez and verdict might change	Court held the Brady claim lacked arguable merit: recantation/unreliable evidence, Commonwealth did not conceal, and no reasonable probability of different outcome given strong other evidence

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (false testimony or nondisclosure affecting witness credibility can violate due process)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence is material if disclosure creates reasonable probability of different outcome)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality assessed under totality of the evidence; verdict must be worthy of confidence)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (nondisclosure of an agreement to not prosecute a witness requires new trial where that witness was central)
Commonwealth v. Strong, 761 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 2000) (any implication or understanding of leniency is relevant impeachment evidence)
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253 (Pa. 2013) (elements of Brady violation: concealment, favorable evidence, prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Buehl, 658 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1995) (withheld impeachment does not require new trial where other evidence sufficiently supports conviction)