J-A11001-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
IAN CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON :
:
Appellant : No. 1265 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 6, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-67-CR-0004278-2016,
CP-67-CR-0004279-2016, CP-67-CR-0004280-2016
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 18, 2019
Ian Christopher Anderson appeals from the judgment of sentence of
eleven and a half to twenty three years of incarceration, imposed after he was
convicted by a non-jury trial of multiple firearms, drugs, and sexual offenses
at three different docket numbers. Based upon our Supreme Court’s decision
in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), we quash the
appeal.
Before we can delve into the merits of Appellant’s appeal, we must first
address the fact that Appellant filed a single notice of appeal for an order that
resolved issues relating to three different docket numbers. In Walker, supra,
185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme Court held that appellants are required
to file separate notices of appeal at each docket number implicated by an
order resolving issues that involve more than one trial court docket, regardless
J-A11001-19
of whether a single hearing or order addressed the issues at all implicated
dockets. Id. at 977. Walker constituted a “bright-line mandatory instruction
to practitioners” that “where a single order resolves issues arising on more
than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case.” Id.
at 971, 976-77. Accordingly, “the failure to [comply with Walker’s mandate]
requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. at 976-77.
Walker was decided on June 1, 2018. Appellant filed a single notice of
appeal which implicates criminal cases at three different docket numbers on
July 30, 2018. On September 10, 2018, this Court issued a rule to show cause
as to why the appeal should not be quashed pursuant to Walker. In response,
Appellant conceded that in an effort to be efficient, he included all three
dockets in a single notice of appeal, since the “the same issues govern.” See
Answer to Motion to Show Cause, 9/11/18, at 1. Appellant acknowledged that
the procedure he followed ran “afoul” of Walker. Id.
Since Appellant concedes his failure to comply with Walker, we are
compelled to quash this appeal. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Nichols, ___
A.3d ___, 2019 WL 1783645 (Pa.Super. April 24, 2019) (quashing an appeal
concerning issues relating to three different docket numbers, despite
Appellant’s argument that the issues raised are identical, there is no prejudice
to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth has not objected, and quashal
would entirely deny appellate review); Commonwealth v. Williams, 206
A.3d 573, 576 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quashing appeal instituted by a single notice
-2-
J-A11001-19
of appeal from the denial of a PCRA petition implicating cases at four different
docket numbers).
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 07/18/2019
-3-
Com. v. Anderson, I.
Combined Opinion