J-S60016-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CURTISS LEVELLE KENT, JR.
Appellant No. 40 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered December 27, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No: CP-22-CR-0001785-2016;
CP-22-CR-0000798-2018
BEFORE: SHOGAN, STABILE, and PELLEGRINI,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JANUARY 21, 2020
Appellant, Curtiss Levelle Kent, Jr., appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on December 27, 2018 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Dauphin County. Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence. Upon review, we quash the appeal.
The factual and procedural background of the instant appeal is not at
issue here. As the trial court explained:
At docket 1785 CR 2016, the Appellant was sentenced on October
4, 2016 with two counts of criminal use of a communication
facility, two counts of possession with intent to deliver, and two
counts of use of possession of drug paraphernalia. At docket 798
CR 2018, the Appellant was sentenced on July 26, 2018 with two
counts of terroristic threats.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60016-19
Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 5/15/19, at 1-2 (footnotes and some capitalization
omitted). On December 20, 2018, the trial court conducted a revocation
hearing on both dockets, recognizing as well that Appellant was facing new
charges in Northumberland County. Appellant’s probation officers testified at
the hearing, explaining to the court various mental health issues that led to
Appellant being medically committed. Appellant also testified, explaining to
the court that he stops taking his medications because of side effects. Id. at
2.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court issued an order
sentencing Appellant to serve one to two years in a state correctional
institution with a mental health treatment program. Id. The order was
entered on the docket on December 27, 2018 and Appellant filed a pro se
notice of appeal the following day, listing both docket numbers.
Before we can entertain the merits of the instant appeal, we must
address the fact that Appellant filed a single pro se notice of appeal identifying
two different docket numbers. “The Official Note to Rule 341 was amended in
2013 to provide clarification regarding proper compliance with Rule341(a)[.]”
Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 976 (Pa. 2018). Relevant to
cases subsequent to the publication of Walker (June 1, 2018), Rule 341(a)
requires that when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one
lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. Failure to do so
results in quashal of the appeal. See id. at 977.
-2-
J-S60016-19
On February 1, 2019, we issued a rule to show cause why the instant
appeal should not be quashed under Walker. Appellant did not file a
response. The show cause order was discharged on February 15, 2019 and
the matter was referred to this merits panel.
Walker’s mandate is clear. Because the December 27, 2018 sentencing
order resolved issues arising from two dockets, Appellant was required to file
two notices of appeal. Because Appellant failed to do so, we are constrained
to quash the instant appeal.
Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Shogan joins the memorandum.
Judge Pellegrini concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/21/2020
-3-