J-S41017-19
2019 PA Super 241
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
LAWRENCE EDWIN CREESE, SR., :
:
Appellant : No. 2066 MDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0001064-2013
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
LAWRENCE EDWIN CREESE, SR., :
:
Appellant : No. 2067 MDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004360-2013
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
LAWRENCE EDWIN CREESE, SR., :
:
Appellant : No. 2068 MDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
J-S41017-19
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004367-2013
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
LAWRENCE EDWIN CREESE, SR., :
:
Appellant : No. 2069 MDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004379-2013
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
DISSENTING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2019
Because Appellant has complied with Pa.R.A.P. 341 and
Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), I would not quash his
appeals. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I am persuaded by the following three decisions of this Court,1 which all
involve the same factual scenario as the instant matter, and none of which
has quashed the appeals under Walker.
In Commonwealth v. Williams, ___ A.3d ___, 2019 WL
3384926 (Pa. Super. July 26, 2019) (non-precedential decision), this Court
* Retired Senior Judge appointed to the Superior Court.
1 Unpublished non-precedential memorandum decisions of the Superior Court
filed after May 1 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value. Pa.R.A.P.
126(b).
-2-
J-S41017-19
held that Williams complied with Walker where he filed three copies of the
notice of appeal for each of the three docket numbers. In so holding, this
Court explained as follows.
This Court issued a Rule to Show Cause directing Williams to
explain why his appeal should not be quashed in light of Pa.R.A.P.
341 and [] Walker [] (holding “where a single order resolves
issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal
must be filed for each of those cases”). Williams responded,
explaining that although he styled the notice of appeal as a single
document referencing the three docket numbers he sought to
appeal, he filed a separate copy of the notice of appeal upon each
of the trial court dockets. Our review of the record reflects that
Williams filed a separate copy of the notice of appeal upon each
trial court docket. As Williams effectively filed three notices of
appeal rather than one, we are satisfied that he has complied with
Rule 341 and Walker.
Williams, supra (non-precedential decision at 2 n.3).
Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Anderson, ___ A.3d ___, 2019 WL
3064860 (Pa. Super. July 12, 2019) (non-precedential decision), this Court
concluded that Anderson technically complied with the requirements of
Pa.R.A.P. 341’s Note by filing three notices of appeal, each containing all three
lower court docket numbers, explaining as follows.
On July 2[, 2018], Anderson filed a notice of appeal at each docket
bearing all three trial court docket numbers. On July 30, 2018,
this Court issued a rule directing Anderson to show cause why her
appeal should not be quashed in light of our Supreme Court’s
decision in [] Walker [] (holding Pa.R.A.P 341’s Note requires the
filing of separate notice[s] of appeal for separate docket numbers;
the failure to file separate notices requires quashal of the appeal).
[Anderson] filed a response indicating that her case was
distinguishable from Walker. We agree. While the inclusion of
the three docket numbers on each notice of appeal confuses the
issue, Anderson technically complied with the dictates of Pa.R.A.P.
341’s Note by filing a notice of appeal at each docket court
-3-
J-S41017-19
number. Accordingly, we conclude that Walker is inapplicable
here.
Anderson, supra (non-precedential decision at 3 n.1).
Likewise, in Commonwealth v. Dealbertis, ___ A.3d ___, 2019 WL
2308047 (Pa. Super. May 29, 2019) (non-precedential decision), this Court
determined that quashal was not required under Walker because Dealbertis
filed two separate notices of appeal, each containing both trial court docket
numbers, with two different time stamps.
[T]he record reflects that [Dealbertis] filed two separate notices
of appeal, each containing both trial court docket numbers.
Indeed, the trial court’s docket sheets for both docket numbers
reflect that [Dealbertis] filed a notice of appeal. As noted by
[Dealbertis] in his response to our order to show cause, the
notices of appeal also contain two different time stamps. (See
[Dealbertis’s] answer to rule to show cause, 8/1/18 at 2, ¶¶ 3-4.)
Based on our review of the record, we find that [Dealbertis] has
complied with Walker’s mandate that separate notices of appeal
be filed in cases where a single order resolves issues on more than
one lower court docket. Now that we have determined that
quashal is not required under Walker, we turn to the merits of
appellant’s appeal.
Dealbertis, supra (non-precedential decision at 5) (footnote omitted).
In the instant case, as in the cases noted supra, Appellant complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 341 and Walker. Our review of the record shows that Appellant
filed a separate notice of appeal at each of the four trial court dockets which
bore all four trial court docket numbers. Each notice of appeal contains a
highlighter marking a different trial court docket number, and the notices
contain different time stamps in different locations on the paper. The trial
court’s docket sheets for all four docket numbers reflect that Appellant filed a
-4-
J-S41017-19
notice of appeal at each docket. Accordingly, four appellate docket numbers
were assigned in this Court, 2066, 2067, 2068, and 2069 MDA 2018, and were
subsequently consolidated by this Court sua sponte. Nothing in Walker
requires a notice of appeal to contain only one docket number. Rather,
Walker’s mandate is that “where a single order resolves issues arising on
more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case.”
185 A.3d at 971. As Appellant filed four notices of appeal rather than one, he
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 341 and Walker. Accordingly, I would proceed to
the merits of Appellant’s appeals.2
2 I recognize that counsel for Appellant has filed a petition to withdraw
pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
Because the Majority Opinion quashes the appeals, it should also deny
counsel’s petition to withdraw as moot. However, because I would not quash
the appeals and would reach the merits, I offer no opinion as to the disposition
of counsel’s petition.
-5-