The compelling factors that which warrant your attention since this issue concerns the erroneous expansion of common law, rule of law which affect not only Hakim and Braheem but have the potential to affect many criminal defendants hereinafter, should such ruling be permitted to stand.

 In sum Hakim snd Braheem Lewis were convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy and several underlying charges. The case arose when Hakim was only 20years and Braheem 21 at the time when he had never had any contact with the police or criminal justice system. Having been advised (albeit erroneously) to waive a jury trial and proceed to a bench trial, they was convicted and sentenced to a draconian sentence of 45 to 90 years. Moreover, lucid was the sentence was illegal on it's face, imposed by a Judge whom was biased against Hakim( who should have recused himself as a matter of law) The procedural history of the case becomes somewhat  tortured shortly after sentencing, since the sentencing court merely corrected only part of the illegal sentence, causing Hakim to assume this current appellate fight to obtain the relief his is entitled to by law, but relief that which the appellate court's entertain with indifference.

 In addition, to being sentenced illegally (but not receiving the entitled relief), Hakim and Braheem did obtain relief from the PCRA court.However, only after his trial and sentencing Judge recused himself and a new Judge was assigned), relating to the waiver issue noted above. Said waiver of his right to be tried by a jury of his peers was found to be lacking in the fundamental requisites necessary for such waiver, i.e. . The waiver was not knowingly, intelligently nor voluntarily given. Trial counsel as wall as appeal counsel, despite having been paid tens of thousand of dollars, dropped the ball regarding both issues mentioned above, also having failed to effectively represent Hakim at the trial, i.e. failing to call known alibi witnesses.

It should be stressed, that the Lewis Brothers had on two occasions, obtained relief in the form of a new trail base upon the constitutionally inadequate colloquy relating to the waiver of his right to a jury trial. Only to have been reversed by the Superior Court, with what appears to be a partial and /or biased reasoning. Despite having again paid PCRA counsel thousands of dollars, this family along with Lewis Brothers believed that had all prior counsel prepared, presented and argued the clearly meritorious issues, in accords with the payment received, such a procedural posture would not currently be in place. Both the sentencing argument(s) and the colloquy arguments presented by counsel have been boilerplate, allowing for the appellate court to reverse, albeit erroneously.

 Regarding the current sentence issue, they are now presently serving a 35 to 70 year sentence; said structure as imposed by the court is as follows:

 A) 20 to 40 yrs attempted murder:

    10 to 20 yrs criminal conspiracy (concurrent to the 20 to 40yrs)

 Originally having run consecutive but corrected upon challenge);

    10 to 20yrs aggravated assault (lesser included offense to the attempted murder charge) (again having run consecutive but corrected upon challenge);

   10 to 20 yrs criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault ( currently running consecutive, despite the fact that the aggravated assault is an underlying element of the attempted murder, and a single criminal act, i.e. attempt murder. (The additional five which make up the five additional years related to underlying offenses.).

 Should the above-mentioned conclusions by the Superior Court be permitted to stand, will reflect a major shift in fundamental fairness as well as basic constitution entitlements to criminal defendant’s, profoundly effecting the basic fundamental right(s) unwitting criminal defendant’s possess to protect themselves from erroneous advice by selfish counsel, and draconian sentences imposed by partial, ill willed and biased judge(s) hell bent on fixing societal problems with one stroke of the pen.

 The Lewis Family along  seek your assistance in having this case investigated  and bring these men home. Also take into consideration  the profound effect such new rule of law will have upon many other criminal defendant’s especially now at a tome when Eric Holder US Attorney General has repealed mandatory sentencing due to , not only overcrowding but also the draconian nature such sentencing bring with it.  Additionally, if the Superior Court has its way, the waiver of such a fundamental right as the , right to be tried by a jury of one’s peers, is of no consequence, since it appearing such a fundamental right is just merely an end which justifies the means. Such irrational rulings by Pennsyvania Appellate Court’s serve as an injustice which amounts to a threat to justice everywhere.