Mustafa Ali v. Unknown CERT Team Members and Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Summary

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court remanded Mustafa Ali’s appeal to the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas to determine whether his untimely Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) statement should be accepted nunc pro tunc. The court held that Ali had shown sufficient good cause for a remand based on his claim that he did not receive the trial court’s order because of prison mail-control-number requirements. The trial court was directed to dispose of the nunc pro tunc request and, if warranted, prepare a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Holdings

1. A pro se appellant's explanation for an untimely Rule 1925(b) filing may be construed as a request for nunc pro tunc relief when the explanation fairly conveys the basis for the delay and the requested relief.
2. If Ali proves that he did not timely receive the trial court's Rule 1925(b) order because the court failed to include a required or correct prison-mail control number, that circumstance would constitute a breakdown in court operations and extraordinary circumstances justifying nunc pro tunc relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ali waived all issues on appeal by failing to timely file a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) statement.
2. Whether Ali's explanation that prison mail screening prevented timely receipt of the trial court's Rule 1925(b) order constituted a request for nunc pro tunc relief and established good cause for a remand under Rule 1925(c).

Disposition

remanded