[J-92-2017] [MO: Donohue, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 33 MAP 2017
:
Appellant : Appeal from the Superior Court Order
: at No. 2299 EDA 2015 dated
: September 30, 2016, Reconsideration
v. : Denied December 5, 2016, Quashing
: the Bucks County Court of Common
: Pleas Order dated June 30, 2015, at
TERRELL LARON WALKER, DAMAIRE : Nos. CP-09-CR-0000100-2015, CP-
WALLACE, QUASHAAD RODNEY : 09-CR-0000101-2015, CP-09-CR-
JAMES AND MAURICE TOWNER JR., : 0000102-2015, CP-09-CR-0000103-
: 2015
Appellees :
: ARGUED: November 29, 2017
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
JUSTICE MUNDY DECIDED: June 1, 2018
In this case, the trial court issued a single suppression order granting the motions
to suppress of four codefendants arising from one traffic stop. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law equally applied to each codefendant. See MO at 5. I agree with the
Majority Opinion that under the circumstances, the Commonwealth’s appeal should not
be quashed. I further agree that a party who seeks to appeal a single order resolving
more than one docket number should file separate notices of appeal. However, I would
eschew adopting a bright-line rule that in the event of a procedural misstep such as the
one that occurred here, quashal is necessarily required.
I recognize that the comment to Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 instructs that
separate notices of appeal must be filed from one or more orders resolving issues
respecting multiple docket numbers. See Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note. Its dictate in this
regard is supported by a citation to Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super.
2007). However, the parties in C.M.K. sought to file a single notice of appeal from two
separate judgments of sentence, stemming from convictions for separate charges, and
docketed individually. Plainly, those circumstances compel the parties to file separate
notices of appeal. See C.M.K., 932 A.2d at 113 (recognizing, “readily apparent” problems
when criminal codefendants file a joint notice of appeal, considering that, in most cases,
the convictions would not be for identical actions). Here, in contrast, the trial court issued
one order disposing of the sole issue of the appropriateness of the traffic stop and its
reasoning was identical with respect to each codefendant. Although the Commonwealth
should have filed separate notices of appeal, its decision to file one notice of appeal
mirrored the handling of the case by the trial court.
I appreciate that the filing of a single notice of appeal from an order or orders
resolving more than one case may justify quashal in certain circumstances including
where the issues raised are not identical or substantially similar. Accord Gen. Elec. Credit
Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 263 A.2d 448, 452 (Pa. 1970). Moreover, I share the
general disapproval of the practice espoused in our case law. See, e.g., id. at 453.
However, we have resorted to quashing appeals based on procedural errors “where no
meaningful choice could be made” to allow the appeal to proceed on the merits. Id.
(footnote omitted).
In the interests of justice and judicial economy, I favor continuing the practice of
addressing the merits of an appeal, despite a procedural error, where the circumstances
permit. Specifically, when the issues are substantially identical, where there is no
objection or no prejudice would ensue, and where quashing the appeal would result in a
total preclusion of the issue being addressed. See id.; Commonwealth v. Swift, 667 A.2d
477, 478-79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995); see also In the Interest of P.S., 158 A.3d 643, 648 (Pa.
[J-92-2017] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 2
Super. 2017) (declining to quash where juvenile filed a single notice of appeal from
multiple adjudications, including each docket number on his single notice, because
juvenile presented intertwined issues relating to the adjudications, the Commonwealth
did not object to the case proceeding, and the appeal period had expired). Accordingly,
I respectfully concur with the disposition of the instant case but dissent as to the Majority’s
prospective holding.
[J-92-2017] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 3