J-S38044-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER HANSON :
:
: No. 43 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 5, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-39-CR-0000421-1984,
CP-39-CR-0001582-1983
BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and COLINS*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2019
Appellant, Christopher Hanson, appeals pro se from the order entered
December 5, 2018, dismissing his fourteenth petition filed under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1 Pursuant to our Supreme Court’s decision in
Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), we must quash this
appeal.
This Court previously summarized the underlying factual and procedural
history of this action in Commonwealth v. Hanson, No. 2136 EDA 2018,
unpublished judgment order at 1-2 (Pa. Super. filed April 22, 2019), and
Commonwealth v. Hanson, No. 2919 EDA 2016, unpublished memorandum
at 1-2 (Pa. Super. filed June 27, 2017), and we only restate the history here
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541–9546.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S38044-19
that is relevant to the current appeal. On June 14, 1984, Appellant was
convicted of murder of the second degree, rape, and conspiracy2 following a
jury trial. Appellant was sentenced on January 30, 1986 to life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole. Appellant appealed from the verdict, this
Court affirmed his judgment of sentence, and our Supreme Court denied
allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Hanson, 534 A.2d 130 (Pa. Super.
1987) (table), aff’d, 544 A.2d 1341 (Pa. 1988) (table). Between 1988 and
2018, Appellant filed thirteen PCRA petitions, each of which was denied or
dismissed.
On November 13, 2018, prior to this Court’s resolution of his appeal of
his thirteenth PCRA petition, Appellant filed a pro se “Motion for DNA Testing.”
On December 5, 2018, the PCRA court entered an order, listing two docket
numbers, which stated that the court was treating the motion as a PCRA
petition and dismissing it because Appellant’s appeal of the order dismissing
his previous PCRA petition remained pending on appeal.3 On December 27,
2018, Appellant filed a single, timely pro se notice of appeal of the PCRA
court’s order along with a statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).
____________________________________________
2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(b), 3121, and 903, respectively.
3 See Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000);
Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 364-65 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(en banc).
-2-
J-S38044-19
Before we reach the merits of the instant appeal, we must address the
issue of whether this appeal must be quashed pursuant to Rule of Appellate
Procedure 341(a) and Walker because Appellant filed a single notice of appeal
bearing two separate docket numbers. On February 25, 2019, this Court
issued a rule directing Appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be
quashed in light of our Supreme Court’s ruling in Walker. Appellant filed a
response, and, on March 13, 2019, this Court entered an order discharging
the rule, but stating that the merits panel may revisit the issue of whether
Appellant’s notice of appeal violated Walker.
Rule 341(a) provides in relevant part in 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). In 2013, the Official Note of Rule 341 was amended to provide the
following clarification regarding compliance with Rule 341(a):
Where . . . one or more orders resolves issues arising on more
than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate
notices of appeal 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, the Commonwealth filed a single notice of appeal from an
order that disposed of four motions to suppress filed by four separate
defendants at four docket numbers. 185 A.3d at 971. The Court noted that
the Pennsylvania appellate courts had historically declined to quash a single
notice of appeal filed to challenge multiple appealable orders, but concluded
-3-
J-S38044-19
that the 2013 amendment to the Official Note of 341 establishes “a bright-line
mandatory instruction to petitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” Id. at
974-77. Thus, the Court held that “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 stated that the failure to comply with this rule
requires the quashal of an appeal. Id. at 977.
Following Walker, this Court has quashed appeals in cases where the
appellant filed a single notice of appeal from an order that resolved issues on
more than one docket. See C.T.E. v. D.S.E., ___ A.3d ___, 2019 PA Super
228, *6 (filed July 26, 2019); Commonwealth v. Nichols, 208 A.3d 1087,
1090 (Pa. Super. 2019); Commonwealth v. Williams, 206 A.3d 573, 576
(Pa. Super. 2019). Furthermore, in Commonwealth v. Creese, ___ A.3d
___, 2019 PA Super 241 (filed August 14, 2019), this Court held that Walker
mandates the quashal of any notice of appeal that lists multiple docket
numbers, even where separate copies of the notice of appeal are filed for each
docket. Id. at *5.
In the present case, the December 5, 2018 PCRA court order identified
two separate docket numbers associated with Appellant’s June 1984
conviction. Appellant filed a single notice of appeal on December 27, 2018,
-4-
J-S38044-19
which listed both docket numbers in the caption.4 In accordance with Walker,
we are therefore bound to quash Appellant’s appeal.5
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/9/19
____________________________________________
4The Supreme Court in Walker stated that the rule announced in that case
would only apply prospectively. 185 A.3d at 977. As Appellant’s notice of
appeal was filed after the date that the Walker decision was issued, the rule
announced in that case is applicable here.
5 Appellant asserted in his response to the rule to show cause that the notice
of appeal should not be quashed because the “instant matter involves a single
Defendant appearing in Court for a single case under two different docket
numbers.” Response to Rule to Show Cause, 3/7/19, at 1. However, as this
Court has noted, Walker created a bright-line rule requiring quashal of a
notice of appeal challenging issues on two or more dockets regardless of
whether those cases were consolidated or treated as a single case below.
C.T.E., 2019 PA Super 228, *6 n.5.
-5-