A former Chambersburg obstetrician-gynecologist now serving a 30 to 95 year prison term for multiple sexual offenses was back in Franklin County court on March 31 for a third evidentiary hearing in his push for post conviction relief. The latest hearing is another chapter in a long running courtroom saga that has drawn appellate scrutiny and hometown attention since his 2017 conviction, as per Justia.
Sohael M. Raschid was convicted in 2017 on numerous counts, including rape of a substantially impaired person and indecent assault of a person under 16, after a multi day jury trial. He received an aggregate 30 to 95 year sentence. Court documents describe allegations that Raschid administered drugs or intoxicants to patients and others before committing sexual assaults, with those findings and the sentence summarized in a Superior Court memorandum posted at Justia.
Raschid is pursuing relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act, arguing his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to call character witnesses, a move his current legal team says could have undercut the prosecution’s case. The March 31 evidentiary hearing was the third in recent months, following sessions in December 2025 and February 2026. As reported by Chambersburg Public Opinion, defense attorney Shawn Michael Stottlemyer represented Raschid at the most recent hearing.
Raschid’s professional history has also stayed in the public spotlight. Public physician records show his medical license was suspended in 2015, according to WebMD, and a New Jersey debarment list documents a 2015 disqualification. Prosecutors and prior reports have also noted that he pleaded guilty in 2019 to taking photographs of a female patient without her consent, according to reporting by Laffey Bucci.
How Courts Look At Ineffective Assistance Claims
Under Pennsylvania law, a petitioner who alleges ineffective assistance in a PCRA petition generally has to clear a three part hurdle. The underlying claim must have arguable merit, counsel must have lacked a reasonable strategic basis for the challenged act or omission, and the petitioner must show prejudice. That test, derived from Strickland, is what courts apply in collateral review. If a judge finds those elements satisfied, relief can include a new trial or resentencing; if not, the original judgment usually stands. Pennsylvania appellate decisions and Supreme Court guidance describe that framework and the narrow circumstances in which collateral relief has been granted. For background on the legal standard, see Pennsylvania Supreme Court guidance available via pacourts.us.
Past Suits And Where Appeals Left Him
Local reporting and court filings also describe a 2004 civil suit that reportedly ended in a 1.5 million dollar settlement with Chambersburg Hospital, a piece of history that has lingered in the case’s public record and context. The Superior Court affirmed Raschid’s convictions on direct appeal, and the state Supreme Court declined to take further review in 2025, leaving the 2017 sentence in place, according to local coverage and court records. Those rulings have narrowed the defense’s paths for relief and set the terms of the current post conviction push.
A judge has not yet issued a written ruling on whether the testimony at the March 31 hearing meets the PCRA standard for overturning or disturbing the original verdicts. The outcome will determine whether Raschid gets another chance to contest his convictions or whether the 2017 sentences remain in force, while both sides wait for the next move from the bench.
