Ali v. State

1

SEIFULLAH A. ALI v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 168-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

February 5, 2024

UNREPORTED IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND ^[*]

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No. CT150316X

Berger, Arthur, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Berger, J.

This case is before us on appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County denying appellant Seifullah A. Ali's motion to correct an illegal sentence. The sole question before us on appeal is whether the circuit court erred and/or abused its discretion in denying Ali's motion. For the reasons explained herein, we shall hold that Ali's convictions for violating a peace order should have merged with his convictions for misuse of electronic communications. We reject Ali's remaining merger arguments, and remand for resentencing.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In this appeal, Ali challenges the aggregate twenty-four-year sentence imposed for eighty-nine counts of criminal conduct related to telephone and electronic mail harassment stalking, and violating a protective order on multiple dates between August and December 2014. Ali was convicted of a total of ninety counts: twenty-five counts of harassment in violation of Md. Code (2002, 2021 Repl. Vol.), § 3-803(a) of the Criminal Law Article ("CR"); twenty counts of misuse of telephone equipment in violation of CR § 3-804(a), twenty-two counts of misuse of electronic communication in violation of CR § 3-805(b), twenty-two counts of failing to comply with a peace order in violation of Md. Code (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.), § 3-1508 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP"), and one count of stalking in violation of CR § 3-802.

Ali was originally sentenced to an aggregate sentence of twenty-seven years' imprisonment. On direct appeal, we vacated the sentence for one count of harassment, holding that the sentence for Count 124, the harassment offense on November 29, 2014, must merge into his sentence Count 122, the misuse of electronic mail on November 29, 2014, under the required evidence test. We otherwise affirmed. On remand, Ali's commitment record was revised to reflect a sentence of twenty-four years.

We summarized the conduct underlying Ali's convictions on direct appeal as follows:

Evidence adduced at trial revealed that Ali had, at one point in the past, dated Jeavetta Lucas (the complaining witness) for about three and a half years. Lucas testified that, approximately one year to one-and-a-half years into the relationship, Ali's behavior changed, and he became "aggressive and mean and short" with her. Lucas testified that, on July 12, 2014, Ali tried to kill her, and that he "put a gun in [her] face." She tried to end the relationship in July 2014, but Ali was "very persistent" and "would constantly call" her and send her text messages after she had told him their relationship was over and refused to date him.

Lucas was employed as a hairstylist at a salon on Marlboro Pike in Prince George's County, Maryland. From August to December of 2014, she had two cell phones: a personal cell phone, and a business cell phone that she used to communicate with her clients. The salon where she worked also had a phone. Lucas indicated that, as of August 2014, Ali was calling her a minimum of ten times per day on all three phone numbers while she was at work. The calls were so excessive that the salon had to take its phone off the hook, and she had to silence her cell phones. Although Lucas had asked Ali not to contact her any more, and she had tried to block his phone number, he continued to call her repeatedly.

Lucas was terrified of Ali. She testified that Ali told her that she "would never get away from him, that he would never be out of [her] life," that "[t]his is not over," and that "he should have killed [her] during that time in July." She stated that Ali sent her text messages threatening to "beat [her] face and slit [her] throat."

Photographs or "screenshots" of text messages that Lucas said she received from Ali, as well as recordings of voice mail messages from Ali, were admitted into evidence. Lucas's cell phone records and the cell phone records for a phone number that she identified as belonging to Ali were admitted into evidence.

Lucas testified that, in September 2014, she resorted to "hiding" from Ali. She moved out of her home and moved in with family members. She moved her son, who was nineteen years old, to a location where she thought he would be "safe." As part of her efforts to avoid Ali, she rearranged her work schedule, cut her work hours, asked clients for rides to and from work, and switched cars with friends and family members. But Ali continued calling and texting Lucas, and driving past her place of work.

On September 24, 2014, Lucas obtained a final protective order against Ali in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County. But, despite the protective order, Ali continued to call Lucas and send her threatening text messages.

As of November 11, 2014, Lucas was reporting the "constant calling and threatening" from Ali to the court weekly, "sometimes twice a week," and filing charges against Ali.

Lucas testified that, on November 21, 2014, she was at work when she received several text messages from Ali that made her "a little unnerved, a little scared." Shortly thereafter, Ali drove his Tahoe vehicle up to the front windows of the salon so that the grille of the vehicle was bearing on the window. Lucas thought that Ali was "going to come through the window, through the wall," and "[e]verybody [in the salon] just started scattering and shouting." Ali jumped out of the car wearing plastic gloves, goggles, and a hood over his head. He peered in through the windows of the salon and attempted to open the front door of the salon, which was locked as a safety precaution "due to the issue [that Lucas] was having with Ali." Lucas called 911. The 911 recording was played for the jury and admitted into evidence. Lucas described it as "the most terrifying experience ever," and said that she felt "scared to death."

Seifullah A. Ali v. State, No. 362 (Sept. Term 2016) (unreported opinion filed July 9, 2018), slip op. at 1-3.

At sentencing, the prosecutor discussed at length Ali's prior conduct in similar situations, emphasizing that Ali had been charged with harassment and violence towards women on multiple other occasions and with multiple other victims. The prosecutor argued:

Most concerning to the State, in reviewing his criminal history, is that since the year 2000 the majority of the charges that he has incurred have involved harassment and violence towards women. The State, in going through, there were six separate cases where he was charged with telephone misuse, stalking, violation of a peace order, harassment. And these were all different victims.

There [were] six separate female victims in each of these cases. And in 2003 he was convicted in D.C. of felony threats or attempted felony threats and violation of the peace order. Essentially it seems that the defendant spent the entirety of the 21st Century harassing and threatening women.

Additionally, based on our research, we found that there were two other women in 2002 who obtained peace orders against this defendant. The State did obtain copies of those petitions which were filed, and these are petitions that were filed almost 14 years ago.

It is very disturbing, the fact that the allegations made in those petitions are almost identical to the actions that this defendant took against Miss Lucas in this case.

Specifically, there was a petition that was filed and peace order that was granted in favor of a woman named Kristin Perkins, and she alleges that in November of 2002, the defendant called me and threatened me - threatened to, one kill me; two, rape me; three, kill my friends; four, flatten the tires of my car; five, break my legs; and six, plant explosives in my car.

Additionally in November of 2002, a woman named Kisha (phonetic) Dosier (Phonetic) also was granted a peace order against this defendant where she alleged that he called her, came to her house, "after I had requested and asked that he stop." She also stated that, "If he sees me with another male in the next 30 days he will kill them." On November 19th, he stated "if I went through with this restraint order that I will not be able to talk."

So, certainly the actions in this case - and I believe it was counsel tried to characterize them as just a heart break. Certainly the State would not agree with that. It appears the actions in this case where [sic] not isolated in any way. They're not unique phenomena. It's not just that he lost it because he's suffering a heart break.

The action that he took against Miss Lucas, very clearly just another victim, another, I guess, act in a pattern of behavior that he has engaged in over the last 16 years against women.

Further, I will note that once he was held in contempt in district court by Judge Anderson, a female judge, and she ruled in a way that he did not like. Instead of accepting that ruling, he engaged in his typically [sic] pattern of the behavior towards women and began screaming at her in court and accused her of being bias [sic] when he didn't get what he wanted.

He then sent her a letter and sent a letter to the court accusing her of misconduct, accusing her or stating that she was biased because they had an affair when she was in law school in San Diego, California. And the State believe [sic] the only way he would have known that was if he had done research on Judge Anderson. Certainly that's disturbing for us.

The State believes that the defendant here is a real, what we consider the most dangerous kind of person. He clearly

...