J-A03020-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LARRY LEE REDMOND :
:
Appellant : No. 765 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order April 4, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-65-CR-0003618-2016
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED APRIL 15, 2019
Appellant, Larry Lee Redmond, purports to appeal from the trial court’s
pretrial order entered April 19, 2018, denying his motion for reconsideration.
Notice of Appeal, 5/21/18, at 1. For reasons that follow, we quash the appeal.
Appellant was charged on September 8, 2016 with: one count of
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse-person less than sixteen; two counts
of aggravated indecent assault-complainant less than sixteen; one count of
endangering welfare of children; one count of corruption of minors; and one
count of indecent assault-person less than sixteen.1 The complainant was
thirteen years old during the commission of these offenses, and the dates of
the offenses charged on the original criminal information ranged from
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3123(a)(7), 3125(a)(8), 4304(a)(1), 6301(a)(1), and
3126(a)(8), respectively.
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A03020-19
September of 2015, through February of 2016. On March 9, 2018, the
Commonwealth sought and was granted leave to amend the criminal
information to reflect dates of charges from February of 2015, through Spring
of 2015. All other averments and charges in the information remained the
same. The amended criminal information was filed on March 15, 2018.
Also on March 15, 2018, Appellant filed a petition to remand for a
preliminary hearing, complaining that he had not been afforded one regarding
the newly amended dates of alleged criminal activity. The trial court denied
the petition on the same date. On March 22, 2018, Appellant filed a petition
for writ of habeas corpus. The Commonwealth filed a response, and on April 4,
2018, the trial court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. On April 19,
2018, Appellant filed a motion to reconsider the April 4, 2018 order denying
his petition for habeas corpus. This motion was denied the same day.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 21, 2018. In it, Appellant
stated that he is appealing “from the Order of Court dated 19th of April 2018
denying [Appellant’s] Motion to Reconsider.” No Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement
was ordered. The trial court filed a “decree pursuant to [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(a)”
and in it stated: “this Decree is made in accordance with [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(a)
and states that the reasons for the decision appear in the Pre-trial conference
transcript dated March 12, 2018.” Decree, 7/25/18, at 1.
“The question of timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional.”
Commonwealth v. Moir, 766 A.2d 1253, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2000). Time
-2-
J-A03020-19
limitations on appeal periods are strictly construed and cannot be extended
as a matter of grace. Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa.
Super. 2002).
In order to preserve the right to appeal a final order of the trial court, a
notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the date of entry of that
order. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Although the entry of a final order triggers the thirty-
day appeal period, this period may be tolled if the trial court expressly
grants a motion for reconsideration within the thirty-day period. Pa.R.A.P.
1701(b)(3). The mere filing of a motion for reconsideration is insufficient to
toll the appeal period. Moir, 766 A.2d at 1254. Rule 1701 is very clear: the
thirty-day appeal period is tolled only by a timely order “expressly granting”
reconsideration. Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3), note (emphasis added).
Herein, the final, appealable order was the April 4, 2018 order denying
Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant’s petition for
reconsideration filed and denied on April 19, 2018, did not toll the appeal
period. Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3). Thus, Appellant’s May 21, 2018 notice of
appeal was filed after the thirty-day appeal period. Because Appellant’s
appeal was untimely filed, we are without jurisdiction to entertain it. Moir,
766 A.2d at 1254. Thus, we quash this appeal as untimely.
Appeal quashed.
-3-
J-A03020-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/15/2019
-4-