J-S12026-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DASHAWN L. JAMISON
Appellant No. 686 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, January 11, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004396-2006
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J. and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MAY 21, 2018
Dashawn Jamison appeals from the judgment of sentence of 7-½ to 15
years, entered following a probation revocation hearing. But, because he filed
an untimely notice of appeal and, as a result, this Court currently has no
appellate jurisdiction, we quash.
In 2006, although only 16-years-old at the time, Jamison pleaded as an
adult to charges of aggravated assault and witness intimidation. The court
sentenced him to 5-½ to 11 years for aggravated assault and eight years of
special probation, consecutive to his prison term, for witness intimidation.
After serving most of his 11 year sentence for assault, Jamison refused
to sign the paperwork required to begin probation or to provide certain contact
information in his home plan. Because Jamison would have maxed-out his
prison sentence the following week, the trial court issued a bench warrant to
J-S12026-18
detain him and to address compliance with his special probation. The dates
of his hearings and the trial court’s orders are critical to the procedural posture
of Jamison’s appeal.
On December 6, 2016, the court of common pleas held a hearing on its
bench warrant. There, Jamison admitted to refusing to sign the paperwork;
he believed that the max dates were incorrect. He denied not supplying the
contact information. Two weeks later, the Board of Probation and Parole filed
a notice of charges and hearing report; the trial court scheduled a probation
violation hearing for January 11, 2017.
Jamison retained private counsel for that hearing. The Commonwealth
provided the court with nine write-ups on Jamison from the prison, which were
the basis of his probation violation, along with his refusal to complete and sign
the home plan. Jamison’s counsel stipulated to the write-ups. Thus, the court
found Jamison in violation of his probation, revoked his probation, and re-
sentenced him to 7-½ to 15 years on January 11th. The court apprised him of
his right to file a post-sentence motion and his right to an attorney. Jamison’s
attorney also advised him – it turns out incorrectly – of his appellate rights.
A week later, he filed a post-sentence motion on Jamison’s behalf asking
the trial court to reconsider the sentence. The trial court ordered a hearing
on the post-sentence motion, scheduled for March 15, 2017.
At the March 15th hearing, Jamison insisted upon representing himself.
The court ultimately ruled “we are going to deny Mr. Jamison's request for a
reconsideration of sentence; and the sentence we previously imposed will stay
-2-
J-S12026-18
intact.” Trial Court Order, 3/15/17 at 2. The judge next misinformed Jamison
that his appellate rights were reinstated and would last 30 days.
Jamison filed a pro se notice of appeal on April 18, 2017. This Court
issued a rule to show cause why Jamison’s appeal should not be quashed as
untimely. He answered as follows:
11. The Notice of Appeal was due to be file[d] by the
defendants [sic] attorney John Homme on Feb. 11 2017.
12. The defendants attorney as we now know did not file
the Notice of appeal in a timely manner effecting [sic] the
defendant[’s appellate] right[s] . . .
Jamison’s Response to Rule to Show Cause (Jamison’s Response) at 1-2. On
August 31, 2017, this Court, by per curiam order, discharged the rule and left
the decision of whether Jamison filed his appeal in a timely fashion to this
panel.
Whether we have jurisdiction is an issue that this Court may raise on
its own motion. “It is well settled that the timeliness of an appeal implicates
our jurisdiction and may be considered sua sponte. ‘Jurisdiction is vested in
the Superior Court upon the filing of a timely notice of appeal.’”
Commonwealth v. Crawford, 17 A.3d 1279, 1281 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(citations omitted). Thus, an untimely appeal vests no jurisdiction in this
Court, even if an appellee fails to object to timeliness. For, as our General
Assembly has made abundantly clear:
(a) General rule.--The failure of an appellee to file an
objection to the jurisdiction of an appellate court within such
time as may be specified by general rule, shall . . . operate
-3-
J-S12026-18
to perfect the appellate jurisdiction of such appellate court .
..
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
defect in the jurisdiction of an appellate court which arises
out of:
(1) The failure to effect a filing within the time provided
or prescribed by law.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 704. Hence, the Commonwealth’s failure to challenge the
untimely filing of this appeal is irrelevant.
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 903(a) provides, a “notice of
appeal . . . shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which
the appeal is taken.” The order from which Jamison appealed is the January
11, 2017 judgment of sentence, following a hearing revoking probation. Thus,
thirty days later, as Jamison’s Response acknowledged, was February 11,
2017. His notice of appeal did not arrive until April 18th, making it untimely.
And Jamison’s January 19th post-sentence motion did not stop the appellate
clock. “The filing of a motion to modify sentence will not toll the 30-day appeal
period.” Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 708(e).
Hence, Jamieson’s attempt to invoke the prisoner mailbox rule, by citing
us to the Commonwealth’s faulty analysis in a trial court filing, is unavailing.
The Commonwealth incorrectly reasoned that:
Although April 18, 2017 is outside the 30 day window to file
a Notice of Appeal, because Defendant is pro se and
incarcerated, the prisoner mailbox rule applies to him. See
Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997).
Because Defendant mailed his Notice of Appeal to the Clerk
of Court’s office on April 10, 2017, Defendant’s filing is
considered timely.
-4-
J-S12026-18
Commonwealth’s Response, 5/24/17 at 1, n. 1. The Commonwealth based its
reasoning on the false premise that Jamison’s time to file his notice of appeal
reset upon the denial of his motion for reconsideration – on March 15, 2017.
However, as explained above, filing a post-sentence motion after revocation
of probation does not toll the appellate time period. Thus, the Commonwealth
counted Jamison’s time to appeal from the wrong date.
The prisoner mailbox rule states that “[a] pro se filing submitted by a
prisoner incarcerated in a correctional facility is deemed filed as of the date it
is delivered to the prison authorities for purposes of mailing or placed in the
institutional mailbox . . .” Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 121(a).
Jamison mailed his notice of appeal on April 10, 2017, which was nearly two
months after his appellate rights expired on February 11, 2017. Thus, the
prisoner mailbox rule does not apply.
Finally, the trial court’s misunderstanding of the rules of appellate and
criminal procedure, as expressed at the March 15th hearing, does not confer
jurisdiction upon this Court. In Jamison’s Response, he notes that, on the day
the court declined to modify his sentence, the judge told him that he had 30
additional days to appeal. The judge misspoke.
Jamison contends that the trial court’s erroneous statement of the rules
of court “should be honored.” Id. He cites no law or precedent to support
this position, and our independent review of the law finds none. Indeed, we
think it untenable that a trial judge’s misstatement of law could grant an
-5-
J-S12026-18
appellate court power which the legislature has expressly denied. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 704, supra. This is especially true here, because Jamison’s right
of direct appeal had already lapsed when the trial judge misstated the rules.
Thus, no prejudice befell him on March 15th.1
We note that Jamison argues in his Response that this appeal is untimely
due to the shortcomings of his now-fired attorney. Indeed, at the January
11th hearing, Jamison’s attorney incorrectly advised “him that a post-sentence
motion would be filed within 10 days of today, and based on the Court’s
decision at that time, it would be 30 days [to appeal to the] Superior Court.”
N.T., 1/11/17 at 12. He erred. Jamison reminds us that such a misstep “falls
beneath the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases,
denies the accused the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and [Article I, Section 9 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution], as well as the right to direct appeal under [Article
V, Section 9] . . .’” Jamison’s Response at 2 (quoting Commonwealth v.
Halley, 839 A.2d 392, 395 (Pa. Super. 2003), reversed on other grounds,
870 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005)). However, jurisdiction is not in this Court; thus, we
have no authority to address an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
But the trial court does. Jamison may seek reinstatement of his appeal
nunc pro tunc by the Court of Common Pleas of York County, pursuant to the
____________________________________________
1We might reach a different conclusion had the judge instructed him wrongly
prior to the time period running out. That did not occur.
-6-
J-S12026-18
Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. See generally
Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999).
Because we have no appellate jurisdiction at this time, the statutory law
and the rules of court constrain us to quash Jamison’s notice of appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/21/2018
-7-