J-S28037-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
PATRICK S. GULDEN, :
:
Appellant : No. 1955 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 8, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001937-2013
CP-54-CR-0001942-2013
BEFORE: BOWES, J., MCLAUGHLIN, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JULY 02, 2019
Patrick S. Gulden (Appellant) appeals from the aggregate judgment of
sentence of 12 to 24 months of incarceration imposed after Appellant’s
probation was revoked at docket numbers 1937 of 2013 and 1942 of 2013.
Upon review, we quash this appeal.
In light of our disposition, a complete recitation of the lengthy
procedural history of this matter is unnecessary. Relevant to this appeal, on
November 8, 2018, Appellant’s probation was revoked at both docket
numbers, and he was sentenced to serve consecutively 6 to 12 months of
incarceration at each docket number.
Appellant timely filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence,
which was denied. On November 27, 2018, Appellant pro se filed a single
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S28037-19
notice of appeal challenging his sentences at both docket numbers. 1 The
trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained
of on appeal, and Appellant filed one pro se. The trial court conducted a
hearing regarding Appellant’s desire to proceed pro se and permitted counsel
to withdraw. 2 Order, 12/11/2018. The trial court filed an opinion in
accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
On appeal, Appellant, now represented by counsel, 3 challenges the
discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence. See Appellant’s Brief at 3.
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.
In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), 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
1 Appellant was represented by counsel at this time. However, the trial
court correctly docketed this notice of appeal, as notices of appeal are an
exception to the general prohibition against hybrid representation. See
Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(holding “this Court is required to docket a pro se notice of appeal despite
Appellant[’s] being represented by counsel”).
2 The transcript of this hearing is not included in the certified record.
3New counsel was appointed by the trial court via an order dated January
24, 2019.
-2-
J-S28037-19
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 November 8, 2018, Appellant filed a single notice of
appeal from a judgment of sentence, which listed two docket numbers.
Because Appellant filed his notice of appeal after our Supreme Court’s
decision in Walker, we must quash this appeal.4 See Commonwealth v.
Williams, 206 A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quashing a single notice of
appeal filed on June 4, 2018, by a pro se prisoner from an order denying a
4 On February 11, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause upon
Appellant regarding the Walker issue. Appellant timely filed a response, in
which he acknowledged the Walker error. Appellant requested that this
Court review the appeal anyway or permit him to file corrected notices of
appeal. Response, 3/7/2019. However, under these circumstances,
Appellant would have to file new notices of appeal, not merely amend his
notice of appeal. It is well settled that this Court is prohibited from
enlarging the time to file a notice of appeal beyond the 30-day timeframe.
See Pa.R.A.P. 105(b). Thus, we can neither review the appeal nor permit
counsel to amend the appeal.
-3-
J-S28037-19
PCRA petition pertaining to multiple docket numbers); Commonwealth v.
Nichols, __ A.3d __, 2019 WL 1783645 (Pa. Super. 2019) (same).
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/2/2019
-4-