J-S26022-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JERMAINE HENDERSON :
:
Appellant : No. 1794 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 18, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012686-2011,
CP-51-CR-0012688-2011
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 03, 2019
Appellant, Jermaine Henderson, appeals nunc pro tunc from the
judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for two counts of robbery and one
count each of first-degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault,
and carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia.1 Based on our Supreme Court’s
decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, ___ Pa. ___, 185 A.3d 969 (2018),
however, we must quash the appeal.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
December 19, 2010, Appellant robbed and shot two victims. Victim 1 died as
a result of his gunshot wounds, but Victim 2 survived the three bullet wounds
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(i), 2502(a), 901(a), 2702(a), and 6108,
respectively.
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S26022-19
to his knee, hand, and forearm. The Commonwealth subsequently charged
Appellant at separate docket numbers for each victim: Docket No. 12688-
2011 for Victim 1, and Docket No. 12686-2011 for Victim 2. Following a trial
on June 18, 2013, a jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder, robbery,
and carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia at Docket No. 12688-2011, and
attempted murder, aggravated assault, and robbery at Docket No. 12686-
2011. The court sentenced Appellant at both docket numbers to an aggregate
term of life without parole (“LWOP”), plus twenty (20) to forty (40) years’
incarceration.
On July 24, 2015, this Court dismissed Appellant’s direct appeal as
untimely. Appellant filed a pro se Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition
on September 8, 2015, and the PCRA court appointed counsel. Counsel filed
an amended PCRA petition on August 29, 2017, and on June 15, 2018, the
court entered an order granting PCRA relief and reinstating Appellant’s direct
appeal rights nunc pro tunc. On June 20, 2018, Appellant timely filed a single
notice of appeal nunc pro tunc concerning both docket numbers. The court
ordered Appellant on June 25, 2018, to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on
July 18, 2018. On August 31, 2018, this Court issued a rule to show cause
why the appeal should not be quashed in light of Walker. This Court
discharged the rule to show cause on September 20, 2018, and referred the
issue to the merits panel.
-2-
J-S26022-19
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO AN ARREST OF JUDGMENT
ON ALL CHARGES WHERE, AS HERE, THE EVIDENCE IS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS THE RESULT
OF COURT ERROR WHERE THE COURT DENIED DEFENSE
OBJECTIONS TO THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE CARL
WATKINS CONCERNING PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
WHO WERE AFRAID OF RETALIATION AND THE LACK OF
COOPERATION OF RAHSUL ISAACS AND STEPHANIE
BRUNSON?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS THE RESULT
OF COURT ERROR WHEN THE COURT DENIED DEFENSE
OBJECTIONS TO THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE
VERRECHIO CONCERNING THE RESULTS OF AN UNRELATED
MURDER TRIAL?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS THE RESULT
OF COURT ERROR WHICH PERMITTED THE PROSECUTOR
TO CROSS-EXAMINE [APPELLANT] ABOUT A POTENTIAL
ALIBI WITNESS BUT WHERE THE NOTICE OF ALIBI HAD
BEEN WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO TRIAL?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
Preliminarily, on June 1, 2018, the Walker Court held that the common
practice of filing a single notice of appeal from an order involving more than
one docket will no longer be tolerated, because the practice violates Pa.R.A.P.
341, which requires the filing of “separate appeals from an order that resolves
issues arising on more than one docket.” Walker, supra at __, 185 A.3d at
977. The failure to file separate appeals under these circumstances “requires
the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. In its decision, the Court also
directed the Appellate Procedural Rules Committee to adjust the language of
-3-
J-S26022-19
the Official Note to Rule 341 or, as an alternative, to add an amendment to
Rule 341 explicitly stating the requirement of filing separate notices of appeal
from a single order resolving issues arising on more than one docket.2 Id.
Instantly, Appellant filed a single notice of appeal from the judgment of
sentence entered at two separate docket numbers. Appellant’s single notice
of appeal was filed on June 20, 2018, which postdates and is therefore bound
by the Walker decision, and must be quashed. Accordingly, we quash this
appeal.
Appeal quashed.
President Judge Panella joins this memorandum.
Judge Pellegrini files a dissenting memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/3/19
2 We are cognizant of the dissent in Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976 (Pa.Super.
2019), which advocates that Walker should not apply until after the Appellate
Procedural Rules Committee updates the language of the Official Note to Rule
341 or adds an amendment to Rule 341 to conform to Walker. We also
recognize that Walker did not allow for a waiting period. Instead, Walker
intends to enforce the Official Note to Rule 341 as already written, which
requires separate notices of appeal when “one or more orders resolves issues
arising on more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment….”
See Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note. Thus, Walker compels us to quash the
appeal under the circumstances of this case.
-4-