J-S03026-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
QASHIME WAGNER :
:
Appellant : No. 1796 EDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 24, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0005678-2011,
CP-51-CR-0010755-2011
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 07, 2019
Appellant, Qashime Wagner, appeals from the order entered on May 24,
2018, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act,
45 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We are constrained to quash the appeal.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. In June 2013, a jury convicted Appellant of two counts of robbery
and one count of conspiracy. On August 1, 2013, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to an aggregate term of six to fifteen years of imprisonment. We
affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on October 6, 2014. See
Commonwealth v. Wagner, 108 A.3d 103 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished
memorandum). Our Supreme Court denied further review. See
Commonwealth v. Wagner, 112 A.3d 652 (Pa. 2015). Appellant filed a
timely pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel who filed an
J-S03026-19
amended PCRA petition. The PCRA court denied relief by order entered on
April 20, 2017. On appeal, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing. See
Commonwealth v. Wagner, 1547 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. 2018). The PCRA
court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief by order entered on May
24, 2018. This timely appeal resulted.
However, we are unable to reach the merits of Appellant’s current claim
because of a procedural error. In this case, Appellant filed a single notice of
appeal from two different trial court docket numbers. A panel of this Court
just addressed this issue as follows:
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
comply 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
-2-
J-S03026-19
has expired.” K.H. v. J.R., 573 Pa. 481, 826 A.2d 863,
870 (2003) (citation omitted).
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
[Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018)] held that
the practice violated 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. The Court stated unequivocally: “The 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
976-977.
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. Accordingly, Walker applies to
appeals filed after June 1, 2018, the date Walker was filed. Id.
Matter of M.P., 2019 WL 850581, at *1–2 (Pa. Super. filed February 22,
2019). This Court went on to issue the following order:
AND NOW, it is ORDERED that all parties seeking review with the
Superior Court shall file notices of appeal as mandated by
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 and
Commonwealth v. Walker []. Failure to comply will result in
quashal of the appeal.
Id at *7.
In this case, there is no dispute that Appellant filed a single notice of
appeal from an order resolving issues on two trial court dockets. Appellant
filed the single notice of appeal on June 22, 2018, clearly after the Walker
-3-
J-S03026-19
decision and, thus, we are constrained under the bright-line rule enunciated
therein to quash this appeal.1
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/7/19
____________________________________________
1It is well-settled that “the Superior Court is an error correcting court and we
are obliged to apply the decisional law as determined by the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania.” Matter of M.P., 2019 WL 850581 at *2, citing
Commonwealth v. Montini, 712 A.2d 761, 769 (Pa. Super. 1998).
-4-