Divided court orders resentencing in Seward killings

The Minnesota Supreme Court today faced a question: Should it fix a state law that’s unconstitutional because it mandates that minors be sentenced to life without parole in particular heinous crimes?

Mahdi Hassan Ali took part in the killings of three people in a botched 2010 robbery at Seward Market. Killed were store employees Osman Jama Elmi, 28, of St. Paul, and Mohamed Abdi Warfa, 30, of Savage, Minn. A customer, Anwar Salah Mohammed, 31, of Brooklyn Park, Minn., was shot dead when he came in to buy a phone card. Ali chased him through the store and shot him three times in the back.

A Hennepin County judge sentenced him to three consecutive life terms in prison in October 2011. He was 17 at the time and tried as an adult, although his exact age was unclear. His defense attorney insisted he was only 15, presenting a Kenyan birth certificate that was in dispute. His conviction was based partly on tipsters who steered police to Ali and also the existence of surveillance video from several stores.

Ali claimed the possibility of life without parole violates the 8th Amendment, particularly since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that life without parole for minors is unconstitutional.

The Minnesota high court said the district court was correct in tossing the birth certificate as evidence. “Without the birth certificate, Mahdi (Ali) has no support for his contention that he is entitled to postconviction relief,” Chief Justice Lori Gildea wrote in today’s opinion.

But Gildea overturned Ali’s sentence (see full opinion), which was based on a state law requiring mandatory life without parole under Minnesota’s “heinous crimes” statute. That didn’t come as much of a surprise because even prosecutors concede that the sentence was unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling. But what to do about that fact did spark disagreement.

Mahdi’s attorney wants him sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after 30 years. Gildea noted that the Legislature has been silent on how to fix a state law that’s unconstitutional.

So she stepped in.

Gildea ordered Ali resentenced, leaving open the possibility that he could still receive a sentence of life without any chance of being released, ordering the lower court to consider his age and mitigating circumstances in determining the sentence. That would be consistent with the parameters ordered by the Supreme Court, but is it Gildea’s job to fix the law?

In his dissent, Justice Alan Page said a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of release after 30 years is more appropriate because that was the sentence that would have imposed before the Legislature changed a law that was subsequently ruled unconstitutional.

“The court’s decision to modify the unconstitutional sentencing scheme now in place and replace it with a judicially created scheme usurps the Legislature’s authority to amend its own statutes,” Page wrote.

“By remanding to the district court to decide after a hearing whether Mahdi should be sentenced to LWOR or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 30 years, we encroach on the Legislature’s responsibility to fix the limits of punishment,” he said.

Justice David Stras said it’s not up to the Minnesota Supreme Court to fix laws that are unconstitutional. Agreeing with Page, Stras said today’s decision amends the state’s “heinous crimes” statute.

“Amending statutes is, and always has been, the Legislature’s job,” he wrote.

“We must declare the heinous-crimes statute unconstitutional as applied to Ali and remand the case to the district court with instructions to impose a sentence of life with the possibility of release,” he said.

Archive: Mn. Supreme Court: Juvenile who raped, murdered Woodbury teen will never get out of prison (NewsCut).

  • Awesome McCool

    He was old enough to know what he did was wrong, very wrong. I have no sympathy for him. I assume he must be a citizen now? Too bad, deporting would be much better.

    • Two things. First, we require real names be used here.

      Second, it doesn’t really matter whether he was old enough to know what he did was wrong. It matters whether he received constitutional protections in an equal way, which is kind of the underpinning of our society.

      The larger question is a good one: Is the role of the third branch of government — in this case the judiciary — to also be the second branch of government — the legislature. Because that’s the issue that both Stras and Page are bringing up.

      As with most Supreme Court decisions, the ramifications go far, far beyond one guy and one crime.

      • KTN

        I think that the Court does not try to legislate from the bench, although it does appear at times this is the case. I’m thinking of Kelo, one of the most reviled decisions in the last 50 years, but what people forget with this decision (and others too), is that to date, 46 states have changed their laws regarding eminent domain – which is what the decision pointed at happening. That may be legislating from the bench, but I view it as pointing out to the states, or federal government remedies to the issue.

    • Kassie

      We generally don’t deport people until after they have served time for crimes. I think the thinking is that we want to make sure people pay for their crimes. Take a murderer originally from England or France. If we just deported them, there would be no punishment. While Somalia is a different story, it is probably best to have one consistent rule.

  • Pat Callahan

    Thats Elmi in the above picture not Warfa. Elmi was the one shot 3 times in the back not Mohammed. I think Mahdi was granted his constitutional protections and had a fair trial. i also think it was a pretty heinous crime and one he doesn’t deserve parole after 30 years for. You’re talking two second and one first degree murder convictions. He was 17 and tried as an adult. I think the courts here did the right thing in their findings based on the supreme court overturning the mandatory sentencing law. we have three branches of government for a reason and one shouldn’t have to do the other’s job but there are certain circumstances where there is no other option.

    • Keep in mind, however, that the sentences were consecutive. So even if he’d been sentenced under the previous law, he would n’t eligible for release for 60 years.

      Obviously now there’s no reason for the Legislature to do its job since the Supreme Court already did it. The case sets a clear precedent and what’s the next issue in which the court will redefine existing law rather than merely declare a law unconstitutional and send it back to the Legislature to fix?