J-S04043-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEFFREY BRICE SNYDER :
:
Appellant : No. 1030 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered May 22, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-55-CR-0000371-2013,
CP-55-CR-0000372-2013
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 22, 2019
Appellant, Jeffrey Brice Snyder, appeals from the order entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County denying his petition filed under the
Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, following an
evidentiary hearing. Based on our Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Commonwealth v. Walker, ___Pa.___, 185 A.3d 969 (2018), we are
constrained to quash the appeal.
On November 20, 2015, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of felony
manufacture/delivery/possession with the intent to deliver a controlled
substance on two separate dockets. On February 1, 2016, the lower court
sentenced Appellant to an aggregate of eight to sixteen years imprisonment.
On October 19, 2016, Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition at both
dockets, asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file certain
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04043-19
pre-trial motions and in inducing Appellant into entering an unknowing and
involuntary plea. Following a PCRA hearing, the PCRA court filed an opinion
on October 22, 2018, which denied PCRA relief on both docket numbers. On
June 21, 2018, counsel filed on behalf of Appellant a single timely notice of
appeal bearing the two lower court docket numbers.
In his appellate brief, Appellant sets forth the following issues:
1. Did the trial court err in denying the Appellant’s PCRA Petition
when it failed to find that trial counsel was ineffective when
trial counsel failed to file pre-trial motions?
2. Did the trial court err in denying the Appellant’s PCRA Petition
when it failed to find that trial counsel was ineffective when
trial counsel caused a wrongful inducement of [Appellant’s]
plea?
Appellant’s Brief at 8.
At the outset, we must address the fact that Appellant filed a single
notice of appeal with issues that relate to two different lower court docket
numbers.1 The Official Note to Pa.R.A.P. 341 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 appeal 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.
____________________________________________
1 The argument portion of Appellant’s brief reveals that he is presenting this
issue as to both lower court docket numbers.
-2-
J-S04043-19
Until recently, we recognize that 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. See In the Interest of P.S., 158 A.3d 643 (Pa.Super.
2017). However, on June 1, 2018, our Supreme Court, in Walker, supra,
held that this practice violates Pa.R.A.P. 341. Specifically, our Supreme Court
held that “where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one
docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case.” Walker, 185
A.3d at 971. 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. See Commonwealth v. Luciani, ___ A.3d ___,
2018 WL 6729854 (Pa.Super. filed 12/24/18) (recognizing that, despite the
fact charges filed at two separate lower court docket numbers are joined for
trial, under Walker, supra, appellants are required to file separate notices of
appeal). The Supreme Court provided that its decision would apply
prospectively to appeals filed after June 1, 2018, the date Walker was filed.
In the case sub judice, Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on June 21,
2018. Although the PCRA court addressed the merits of Appellant’s collateral
issues in one opinion, under current precedent, our Supreme Court mandates
that Appellant was to file a separate notice of appeal for each lower court
docket number. Consequently, since Appellant’s notice of appeal, which arises
from two lower court docket numbers, was filed after Walker, we are
constrained to quash the appeal.
-3-
J-S04043-19
Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/22/2019
-4-
Com. v. Snyder, J.
Combined Opinion