J-S76038-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER PAUL GLENN :
:
Appellant : No. 924 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 14, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-04-CR-0000645-2017,
CP-04-CR-0000646-2017, CP-04-CR-0000828-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED DECEMBER 24, 2018
Christopher Paul Glenn (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed following the entry of his guilty plea to three counts of
possession with intent to deliver and one count of fleeing or attempting to
elude a law enforcement officer.1 Additionally, Appellant’s counsel, Frank N.
Paganie, Esquire (Counsel), seeks to withdraw from representation pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). Based upon our Supreme Court’s
recent decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), we
quash the appeal and dismiss Counsel’s petition to withdraw.
The trial court detailed the relevant procedural history of this case as
follows:
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30); 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3733(a).
J-S76038-18
At issue are three separate cases. At Case No. 645 of 2017,
an Information was filed on May 15, 2017, charging [Appellant]
with thirty-four counts, including, inter alia, fleeing and
attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, and possession
with intent to deliver heroin. At Case No. 646 of 2017, an
Information was filed on May 15, 2017, charging [Appellant] with
additional drug offenses involving heroin. At Case No. 828 of
2017, an Information was filed on June 12, 2017, charging
[Appellant] with further drug offenses involving heroin. On May
14, 2018, [Appellant] entered a plea in each case. [Appellant]
pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to deliver heroin
in each of his three cases, with an additional count of fleeing and
attempting to elude a law enforcement officer at Case No. 645 of
2017. [Appellant] waived his right to a presentence report and
was sentenced in each case on the same day. By agreement of
the parties, the sentence imposed at each count and in each case
were [to] run concurrent to each other, for an aggregate sentence
of thirty-six to seventy-two months.[FN] 1
[FN] 1On May 18, 2018 the Court sua sponte entered
an Amended Sentence Order in each case,
reclassifying amounts of restitution as costs of
prosecution. See Commonwealth v. Baney, 2018
PA Super 131, --- A.3d --- (Pa. Super. 2018) (“We
caution courts and counsel in such cases of the
necessity of the accurate use of the terms,
“restitution” and “costs of prosecution” at sentencing
when attempting to recover “buy money,” grand jury
costs, and costs of investigations, or witness fees.”).
On May 21, 2018, [Appellant’s] counsel filed a Post
Sentence Motion at Case No. 645 of 2017, noting that
the Court made an error on the Sentence Order at
Case No[.] 645 of 2017, sentencing [Appellant] to
thirty-six to seventy-two months on Count 3, when
the agreement of the parties was twenty-four to forty-
eight months for that count. The Court entered
another Amended Sentence Order at Case No. 645 of
2017, noting the error, granting [Appellant’s] Post-
Sentence Motion, and correcting the sentence to
reflect the agreement of the parties.
-2-
J-S76038-18
Trial Court Opinion, 7/20/18, at 1-2. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal
on June 11, 2018.2
At the outset, we must address the fact that Appellant filed a single
notice of appeal with issues that relate to three different docket numbers. The
Official Note to Rule 341 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure
provides, in relevant part:
Where, however, one or more orders resolves issues arising on
more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment,
separate notices of appeals must be filed. Commonwealth v.
C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111, 113 & n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quashing
appeal taken by single notice of appeal from order on remand for
consideration under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons’ judgments
of sentence).
Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.
Until recently, it was common practice for courts of this Commonwealth
to allow appeals to proceed, even if they failed to conform with Pa.R.A.P. 341.
While our Supreme Court recognized that the practice of appealing
multiple orders in a single appeal is discouraged under Pa.R.A.P.
512 (joint appeals), it previously determined that “appellate
courts have not generally quashed [such] appeals, provided that
the issues involved are nearly identical, no objection to the appeal
has been raised, and the period for appeal has expired.” K.H. v.
J.R., 826 A.2d 863, 870 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted).
____________________________________________
2 On June 7, 2018, prior to filing his Notice of Appeal, Appellant filed a pro se
motion to dismiss in all three cases based on Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
Procedure 600 and 582. Appellant also filed a pro se motion seeking to
withdraw his guilty plea. Because Appellant was represented by counsel at
the time he filed the pro se motions, on June 18, 2018, the trial court properly
concluded that the motions were an impermissible form of hybrid
representation and were “legal nullities.” Order 6/18/18, at 2 (citing
Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 671 (Pa. 2015)).
-3-
J-S76038-18
In the Interest of: P.S., 158 A.3d 643, 648 (Pa. Super. 2017) (footnote
omitted).
However, on June 1, 2018, our Supreme Court, in Walker, held that
this practice violates Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341, and the
failure to file separate notices of appeal for separate dockets must result in
quashal of the appeal. See Walker, 185 A.3d at 977. In particular, the Court
concluded that “[t]he Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line
mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal. . . .
The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. at
976-77.
Because the mandate in the Official Note was contrary to “decades of
case law from this Court and the intermediate appellate courts,” the Walker
Court announced that its holding would apply prospectively only. Id. at 977.
Only appeals filed after June 1, 2018, the date Walker was filed, would
require the filing of separate notices of appeal. Id.
Here, Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on June 11, 2018. Although
the trial court addressed the merits of Appellant’s issues in its 1925(a) opinion,
under current precedent, our Supreme Court has mandated that “when a
single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket,
separate notices of appeal must be filed. The failure to do so will result in
quashal of the appeal.” Id. Thus, because Appellant’s notice of appeal, which
arises from multiple dockets, was filed after Walker, we must quash the
appeal.
-4-
J-S76038-18
Appeal quashed. Petition to withdraw as counsel dismissed. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/24/2018
-5-