Com. v. Pratt, H.

J-A13044-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : HENRY PRATT, : : Appellant : No. 3194 EDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 17, 2018 in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0002336-2015 CP-15-CR-0003331-2014 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.* MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 26, 2019 Henry Pratt (Appellant) appeals pro se from the October 17, 2018 order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Upon review, we quash. We set forth the PCRA court’s summary of the procedural history of Appellant’s case as follows. On November 20, 2015 [Appellant] entered into a negotiated guilty plea [at docket number] CP-15-CR-2336- 2015[,] in which he [pleaded] guilty to one count of access device fraud …. At the same time, [Appellant] entered into a negotiated guilty plea to one count of forgery … [at docket number] CP-15-CR-3331-2014. On the same day, [Appellant] was sentenced to the agreed[-]upon sentence of two years of probation on the one count of access device fraud followed by two years of probation on the one count of forgery. As the probation sentences were run consecutive to one another, [Appellant] received an * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A13044-19 aggregate sentence of four years of probation. [Appellant] did not file any post-sentence motions or a direct appeal. … On June 11, 2018, [Appellant] filed the pro se PCRA petition, which is now the subject of this appeal. PCRA Court Opinion, 12/28/2018, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization and parenthetical numbers omitted). Counsel was appointed, and counsel filed a “no-merit” letter and petition to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). Appellant pro se filed a response. On September 18, 2018, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant objected. On October 17, 2018, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely filed and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw as counsel. This timely-filed appeal followed.1 Preliminarily, we must address Appellant’s failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 341 by filing a single notice of appeal from an order that resolved issues relating to two different docket numbers. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(a) directs that “an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a government unit or trial court.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). “The Official Note to Rule 341 was amended in 2013 to provide clarification regarding proper compliance with Rule 341(a)....” 1Appellant timely filed a concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), but did not serve a copy on the PCRA court. The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. -2- J-A13044-19 Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 976 (Pa. 2018). The Official Note now reads: Where ... one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate notices of appeals 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. In Walker, our Supreme Court construed the above-language as constituting “a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” Walker, 185 A.3d at 976-77. Therefore, the Walker Court held that “the proper practice under Rule 341(a) is to file separate appeals from an order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket. The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. at 977. However, the Court tempered its holding by making it prospective only, recognizing that “[t]he amendment to the Official Note to Rule 341 was contrary to decades of case law from this Court and the intermediate appellate courts that, while disapproving of the practice of failing to file multiple appeals, seldom quashed appeals as a result.” Id. Accordingly, the Walker Court directed that “in future cases Rule 341 will, in accordance with its Official Note, require that when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Id. (emphasis added). Commonwealth v. Williams, ___ A.3d ___, 2019 WL 1272699 at *2 (Pa. Super. 2019). Walker was filed on June 1, 2018. Appellant filed the instant notice of appeal on October 29, 2018. Because Appellant failed to comply with Rule 341 and Walker, we must quash this appeal. See Williams, supra (quashing incarcerated defendant’s post-Walker pro se notice of appeal, -3- J-A13044-19 filed June 4 or 5, 2018, from PCRA order resolving issues related to four different docket numbers).2 Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/26/19 2 This author disagrees with a strict application of Walker to incarcerated pro se appellants, but pursuant to Williams, supra, recognizes that he must. -4-