J-A07040-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TYWON D. BAKER :
:
Appellant : No. 315 MDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 24, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0002036-2007,
CP-22-CR-0002041-2007, CP-22-CR-0002053-2007
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MAY 19, 2020
Tywon Baker appeals pro se from the order entered January 24, 2019,
denying his fifth petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, as untimely. Based on
Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), we quash this appeal.
On June 23, 2008, Baker pleaded guilty to third-degree murder and
related charges at three separate docket numbers: 2036 CR 2007, 2041 CR
2007, and 2053 CR 2007. The court sentenced him to 30 to 60 years in prison.
He did not file a direct appeal. On September 14, 2012, this Court affirmed
the denial of Baker’s first, counseled, PCRA petition, and granted PCRA
counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Baker filed the instant PCRA petition, his fifth, on October 12, 2018,
claiming to have met the newly recognized constitutional right exception to
J-A07040-20
the PCRA time-bar, based on McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500 (2018).
The PCRA court denied the petition as untimely on January 24, 2019. On
February 13, 2019, Baker appealed pro se, filing a single notice of appeal
listing the three trial court docket numbers.
We do not reach the merits of Baker’s issues because we must quash
the appeal pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 and Walker.1
[I]n Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our
Supreme Court held – unequivocally – that “prospectively, 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 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court observed that the
Official Note to Rule 341 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure “provides a bright-line mandatory instruction to
practitioners to file separate notices of appeal,” and accordingly,
determined that “the failure to do so requires the appellate
court to quash the appeal.” Walker, at 976-77 (emphasis
added).
Commonwealth v. Nichols, 208 A.3d 1087, 1089-90 (Pa.Super. 2019)
(emphasis in original).
Here, Baker’s case involves three separate docket numbers: 2036 CR
2007, 2041 CR 2007, and 2053 CR 2007. Under current precedent, our
Supreme Court mandates that Baker must have filed a separate notice of
appeal for the dismissal of his PCRA petition filed at each docket number.
Instead, Baker filed a single notice of appeal containing multiple docket
numbers. Therefore, pursuant to Walker, we quash the appeal.
____________________________________________
1 On March 12, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause directing Baker
to show why his appeal should not be quashed in light of Walker. Baker filed
a response and, on April 26, 2019, this Court entered an order discharging
the rule and stating that the merits panel would revisit the issue.
-2-
J-A07040-20
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 05/19/2020
-3-