Convicted Felon Incompetently Seeks Shortened Sentence in Pro Se Pleading
Post 4856
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXj9W6AD, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gaMSX9eV and at https://lnkd.in/g2wqG6DN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Rameeza S. Chowdhury (“Chowdhury”) appealed as her own attorney from the order dismissing her petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) and must serve the full sentence.
Rameeza S. Chowdhury (“Chowdhury”) appealed as her own attorney from the order dismissing her petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) and must serve the full sentence.
In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Rameeza S. Chowdhury, No. 1491 MDA 2023, No. J-S19027-24, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (August 8, 2024) Chowdhury’s attempt to get out of jail was found to have been made without an appropriate basis and incompetently.
FACTS
Berks Psychiatry (“BP”), a medical office headed by Doctor Mohammed Khan resulted in the arrest and conviction of Ms. Chowdhury. Before her arrest the Commonwealth received information that patients could walk into BP and receive prescriptions for certain controlled substances with little if any medical examination. A search warrant was executed on October 16, 2012, resulting in the seizure of numerous records and approximately seven million dollars in cash. Dr. Khan unlawfully prescribed approximately 145,000 pills from January 1, 2012, through October 16, 2012.
Chowdhury, BP’s office manager, was charged as an accomplice to Dr. Khan with respect to prescribing three controlled substances (Xanax, Adderall, and Ritalin). In addition, the Commonwealth filed several charges particular to Chowdhury as a principal, which encompassed fraudulent billing, racketeering, perjury, and hindering prosecution. Medicare would be billed for separate visits on different dates, i.e., one day with the therapist and one day with Dr. Khan, when, in reality, the patients saw both persons on the same day. Several BP witnesses testified that Chowdhury ordered the alterations.
THE SENTENCE
After a non-jury trial on March 8, 2017, the trial court convicted Chowdhury of three counts of unlawful administration of a controlled substance by a practitioner, two counts of corrupt organizations, and one count each of conspiracy, perjury, insurance fraud, and hindering prosecution. The trial court sentenced Chowdhury to an aggregate term of six to eighteen years of imprisonment to be followed by two years of probation. Chowdhury did not appeal.
On June 6, 2019, Chowdhury timely filed a pro se PCRA petition, her first.
Chowdhury presented the following two questions for consideration:
1 Whether Chowdhury is guilty by association for drug crimes when she was employed by a medical doctor as an office manager.
2 Whether the Commonwealth met its burden of proof in overcoming the protections of statutes which confer additional immunity from guilt by association for those good faith office manager employees of medical professionals who were convicted of drug crimes incidental to government overreach, subject to counsel review?
ARGUMENT
Chowdhury argued that she is “not guilty as a matter of law” because as officer manager, she performed administrative duties and “had nothing to do with drug crimes.” Couched within the first issue, Chowdhury also argued that the Commonwealth did not prove she constructively possessed drugs because “office managers do not dispense drugs.”
Chowdhury concluded, without expounding, that counsel missed this law and its immunizing effect, ineffectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The appellate court concluded that no relief was due on any of Chowdhury’s claims.
First, Chowdhury failed to raise these issues in her PCRA petition. Accordingly, all of Chowdhury’s issues were waived on this basis.
A petitioner cannot raise issues in a PCRA petition that have been previously litigated or waived. Chowdhury’s claims all center around her argument that she cannot be held criminally liable because she was merely an office manager who worked under the direction of Dr. Khan, which was previously litigated on direct appeal. Chowdhury’s claims are, therefore, ineligible for PCRA relief.
To establish an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, a petitioner must prove: (1) The underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) appellant suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error such that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different absent such error.
Because Chowdhury did not develop this issue, let alone prove the inadequacy, the appellate court concluded it was also waived.
ZALMA OPINION
It is axiomatic that the person who represents herself in court has a fool for a client and is a foolish litigator to take on such a difficult task. Chowdhury failed totally, made an enemy of a court appointed lawyer who withdrew and then totally failed in her attempts to represent herself to the appellate court, proving the axiom correct. The crime she, and her employer, Dr. Khan committed was evil rather than medicinal and she will now serve the six to eighteen years in prison.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
