Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Seifullah Abdul-Salaam's emergency motion for a stay of execution and request for an expedited briefing schedule. The court held that the PCRA exception for newly recognized constitutional rights requires a retroactivity determination to have been made before the petition was filed, and concluded that Abdul-Salaam had not satisfied the applicable jurisdictional requirements or established grounds for a stay.

Holdings

1. The PCRA's newly recognized constitutional-right exception applies only when the Supreme Court that recognized the right had already held the right retroactive to cases on collateral review before the petitioner filed the PCRA petition.
2. The petitioner did not satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(iii) because the United States Supreme Court had not held Apprendi or Ring retroactive to cases on collateral review when the second petition was filed.
3. A stay of execution requires a pending post-conviction petition that satisfies the PCRA and a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits; a petition that is jurisdictionally untimely does not satisfy that requirement.
4. The petitioner's Brady, procedural-rule, fingerprint-evidence, and speculative brain-imaging claims did not establish a likelihood of success or otherwise justify a stay or expedited briefing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)'s requirement that a new constitutional right 'has been held' retroactive requires a retroactivity determination before the petitioner files the PCRA petition.
2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a stay of execution under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(c).
3. Whether the petitioner's Brady, procedural due process, fingerprint-evidence, and alleged new mitigating-evidence claims established entitlement to a stay or expedited briefing.

Disposition

denied