J-S09034-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JORGE LUIS BURGOS, JR., :
:
Appellant : No. 1226 WDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 30, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000221-2012
CP-25-CR-0003499-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 25, 2019
Jorge Luis Burgos, Jr. (Appellant), appeals from the July 30, 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 detailed recitation of the underlying facts
is unnecessary. Pertinent to this appeal, on April 3, 2012, Appellant pleaded
guilty at docket number CP-25-CR-0000221-2012 to driving under the
influence (DUI) – general impairment, and DUI – while blood alcohol content
(BAC) .02 or greater, and license is suspended. On June 12, 2012,
Appellant received an aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 months of
incarceration followed by 30 months of probation. Appellant did not file a
post-sentence motion or direct appeal.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S09034-19
On August 7, 2017, Appellant pleaded guilty at docket number CP-25-
CR-0003499-2016 to DUI – controlled substance, DUI – while BAC .02 or
greater, and license is suspended, and careless driving. Appellant received
an aggregate sentence of two to four years of incarceration followed by
three years of probation, 25 hours of community service, and a drug and
alcohol evaluation. Again, Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion or
direct appeal.
On March 8, 2018, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA petition at
both docket numbers. Counsel was appointed and filed a supplement to
Appellant’s PCRA petition on May 14, 2018. On June 20, 2018, the PCRA
court issued notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s PCRA petition without
a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant pro se filed an objection
to the court’s notice of intent to dismiss. On July 30, 2018, the PCRA court
dismissed Appellant’s petition. On August 29, 2018, Appellant timely filed a
notice of appeal.1
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, 9/14/2018. No response
1 Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In addition to a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court also referred this Court to its June 20, 2018
notice of intent to dismiss.
-2-
J-S09034-19
was filed,2 and on September 26, 2018, this Court discharged the rule,
advising Appellant that “the issue may be revisited by the panel[.]” Order,
9/26/2018. Thus, before we reach the issues presented by Appellant on
appeal, we must address first the fact that Appellant filed a single notice of
appeal from an order resolving issues raised at two docket numbers.
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.” Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note. 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 29, 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
2 Additionally, Appellant did not address this Court’s rule to show cause in
his brief.
-3-
J-S09034-19
Court’s decision in Walker, and failed to comply with Rule 341, we must
quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/25/2019
-4-