J-S51036-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
HAROLD DICKSON :
:
Appellant : No. 729 MDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001667-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
HAROLD DAVID DICKSON :
:
Appellant : No. 730 MDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001669-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
HAROLD DAVID DICKSON :
:
Appellant : No. 731 MDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001666-2015
J-S51036-19
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
HAROLD DICKSON :
:
Appellant : No. 732 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001665-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
HAROLD DAVID DICKSON :
:
Appellant : No. 733 MDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001672-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J.
DISSENTNG MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
FILED NOVEMBER 07, 2019
I respectfully dissent because I think Appellant complied with the
express dictates of Commonwealth v. Walker, 646 Pa. 456, 469, 185 A.3d
969, 977 (2018) (holding prospectively: “[T]he 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
-2-
J-S51036-19
quash the appeal”). Walker relied on the 2013 amendment to the Official
Comment of Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) (stating 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).
Recently, in Commonwealth v. Creese, 2019 PA Super 241 (filed
August 14, 2019), a panel of this Court interpreted Walker “as instructing
that we may not accept a notice of appeal listing multiple docket numbers,
even if those notices are included in the records of each case. Instead a notice
of appeal may contain only one docket.” Id. at *2. In my opinion, Creese
represents an unwarranted extension of Walker, because nothing in Walker
includes a “one docket number only per notice of appeal” mandate. Said
another way, nothing in Walker prohibits an appellant from filing a notice of
appeal listing more than one docket number, so long as the appellant files a
separate notice of appeal at each relevant underlying docket, which is
consistent with Rule 341(a). Further, Creese decidedly penalizes appellants,
especially pro se appellants, who had absolutely no way to intuit the additional
requirement Creese grafted onto Walker. Here, Appellant filed five separate
pro se notices of appeal, one at each underlying docket. In my view, Appellant
complied with Walker, even though he included all five docket numbers on
each notice of appeal. Instead of quashing these consolidated appeals under
Walker, based on the “infused” Creese technicality, I would affirm the PCRA
-3-
J-S51036-19
court’s decision, based on statutory untimeliness (see 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9545(b)) and Rule 1925(b) waiver. Accordingly, I dissent.
-4-