J-S05033-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DEMARCO RAYSHUN LANDINGHAM, :
:
Appellant : No. 1151 WDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 16, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0002614-2015
CP-25-CR-0002615-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED MARCH 25, 2019
Demarco Rayshun Landingham (Appellant) appeals from the July 16,
2018 order dismissing his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act
(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Upon review, we quash this appeal.
In light of our disposition, a complete recitation of the factual and
procedural history is unnecessary. Pertinent to this appeal, on May 9, 2016,
Appellant pleaded guilty at docket number CP-25-CR-0002614-2015 (2614-
2015) to one count of possession with the intent to manufacture or deliver
and one count of possession of firearm by person prohibited. That same
day, Appellant pleaded guilty at docket number CP-25-CR-0002615-2015
(2615-2015) to one count of possession with the intent to manufacture or
deliver and one count of criminal use of communication facility. On July 8,
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S05033-19
2016, Appellant received an aggregate sentence of 89 to 178 months’
incarceration plus five years’ probation. No direct appeal was filed.
On August 28, 2017, Appellant pro se filed a PCRA petition at both
docket numbers. Counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition on
February 27, 2018, again listing both docket numbers. On June 13, 2018,
the PCRA court issued a notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition
without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant did not file a
response and on July 16, 2018, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s
petition. On August 15, 2018, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.1 In
its caption, Appellant listed both docket numbers.
In this Court, we issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should
not be quashed in light of our Supreme Court’s holding in Commonwealth
v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). See Order, 10/22/2018. No response
was filed, 2 and on November 9, 2018, this Court discharged the rule,
advising the parties “that the issue may be revisited” upon this panel’s
review. Order, 11/9/2018. Thus, before we reach the issue presented by
Appellant on appeal, we must address first the fact that Appellant filed a
single notice of appeal raising an issue that relates to two docket numbers.
1
Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
2
Appellant also did not address this issue in his brief.
-2-
J-S05033-19
In Walker, our Supreme Court considered whether to quash an appeal
where one notice of appeal was filed for orders entered at more than one
docket number. The Official Note to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 341(a) provides that “[w]here … one or more orders resolves [sic]
issues arising on more than one docket … separate notices of appeal must be
filed.” In Walker, our Supreme Court found that the “Official Note to Rule
341 provides a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file
separate notices of appeal.” Id. at 976-77. Thus, it held that for appeals
filed after June 1, 2018, the date Walker was filed, “when a single order
resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate
notices of appeal must be filed.” Id. at 977. The Court emphasized that the
“failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Id.
In this case, on August 15, 2018, Appellant filed a single notice of
appeal from an order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition filed at two docket
numbers. Because Appellant filed his notice of appeal after our Supreme
Court’s decision in Walker, we must quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
-3-
J-S05033-19
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/25/2019
-4-
Com. v. Landingham, D.
Combined Opinion