J-S27012-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DANTE ALAN BONNER :
:
Appellant : No. 1199 WDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 15, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0008568-2013,
CP-02-CR-0008642-2013, CP-02-CR-0012173-2012
BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and COLINS*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 21, 2019
Appellant, Dante Alan Bonner, appeals pro se from the order entered on
June 15, 2018, which dismissed his petition filed under the Post Conviction
Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We quash this appeal.
We previously summarized the facts underlying Appellant’s convictions
and sentence:
The factual background of case CP-02-CR-0012173-2012
(“case 12173”) is as follows. On October 5, 2012, Allegheny
County Housing Authority Police noticed a vehicle driving in
reverse while failing to stop at a stop sign. Police observed
Appellant, the front passenger in the vehicle, reach under his
seat. A search of the vehicle found heroin, a firearm, and
marijuana located under Appellant’s seat.
The factual background of case CP-02-CR-0008568-2013
(“case 8568”) is as follows. In the early morning hours of
April 17, 2013, Pittsburgh Police conducted a traffic stop of a
blue Dodge Avenger. Before the officers could exit their
vehicle, Appellant, who was located in the rear seat of the
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S27012-19
Avenger, fled the vehicle. Officer Christopher Kertis pursued
Appellant and, during that pursuit, Appellant fired three shots
at Officer Kertis. At least one of those shots hit Officer Kertis.
Officer Kertis received treatment at the hospital, but still
suffers symptoms as a result of the shooting.
The factual background of case CP-02-CR-0008642-2013
(“case 8642”) is as follows. On February 15, 2013, Sergeant
Cristyn Zett was driving her personal vehicle when Appellant
backed his vehicle into Sergeant Zett. She exited her vehicle
and identified herself as a law enforcement officer. A struggle
between Sergeant Zett and Appellant ensued and Appellant
fled the scene. Appellant was later located and Sergeant Zett
identified him as the individual who backed into her vehicle.
...
On June 10, 2014, Appellant [pleaded guilty to a number of
crimes, including:] two counts of carrying a firearm without
a license, two counts of possession of a firearm by a
prohibited person, possession of a small amount of
marijuana, possession of a controlled substance, possession
with intent to deliver a controlled substance, evidence
tampering, attempted homicide, assault of a law enforcement
officer, recklessly endangering another person, receiving
stolen property, aggravated assault, resisting arrest, [and]
fleeing the scene of an accident. . . .[1] In exchange for his
guilty pleas, the Commonwealth requested that the
sentences at cases 12173 and 8642 run concurrently with the
sentence at case 8568. After the completion of a pre-
sentence investigation report (“PSI”), on September 4, 2014,
Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 39 to 78
years’ imprisonment.[fn.2]
[fn.2] The aggregate sentence included 10 to 20 years for
attempted homicide, 20 to 40 years for assault of a law
enforcement officer, 1 to 2 years for recklessly
endangering another person, 3½ to 7 years for carrying
a firearm without a license, 2½ to 5 years for receiving
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106(a)(1), 6105(a)(1), and 6105(c)(8); 35 P.S.
§§ 780-113(a)(31), (16), and (30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4910(1), 901(a), 2501,
2702.1(a), 2705, 3925(a), 2702(a)(3), 5104, and 3743(a), respectively.
-2-
J-S27012-19
stolen property, and 2 to 4 years for possession of a
firearm by a prohibited person. In accordance with
Appellant’s plea agreement, these sentences were
imposed at case 8568, while punishments for the offenses
charged at cases 12179 and 8642 were ordered to run
concurrently to case 8568.
Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592, 595-596 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(some footnotes omitted), appeal denied, 145 A.3d 161 (Pa. 2016).
We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on February 23, 2016
and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance
of appeal on July 27, 2016. Id.
On July 17, 2017, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition. Within
this petition, Appellant claimed that his plea counsel was ineffective for:
“advising [Appellant] to take a plea[] that was changed at the last moment
into an open plea” and “failing to properly prepare for sentencing, where
[Appellant] has a history of mental health [problems] and continues to suffer
from those issues.” Appellant’s Pro Se PCRA Petition, 7/17/17, at 3-4.
The PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Appellant during the
proceedings. See PCRA Court Order, 7/21/17, at 1. However, on January 18,
2018, appointed counsel filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and a no-merit
letter, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
On February 7, 2018, Appellant filed an amended pro se PCRA petition
and claimed that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing because, at
the time, he believed he was entering a negotiated guilty plea, where the
negotiated sentence was 20 to 40 years in prison. See Appellant’s Amended
-3-
J-S27012-19
Pro Se PCRA Petition, 2/7/18, at 1-14. Appellant claimed that he was entitled
to relief, as he did not receive the benefit of his plea bargain. See id.
On May 17, 2018, the PCRA court entered an order, which notified
Appellant that it intended to dismiss his petition without holding an evidentiary
hearing and, further, granted counsel’s petition to withdraw. PCRA Court
Order, 5/17/18, at 1-4; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1).
The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition on June 15, 2018 and
Appellant filed a single notice of appeal for all three docket numbers. PCRA
Court Order, 6/15/18, at 1-5; Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 7/9/18, at 1.
Before we consider the merits of Appellant's claims, we first determine
whether this appeal is properly before us. Appellant, on July 9, 2018, filed a
single notice of appeal listing three docket numbers, rather than separate
notices of appeal at each docket in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 341. Because
of this procedural misstep, we are constrained to quash.
In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme
Court recognized that the “Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line
mandatory instruction [] to file separate notices of appeal. . . . The failure to
do so requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. at 976-977. The
Court, however, determined that the failure to file separate notices of appeal
would result in quashal only for appeals filed after the date of that decision,
i.e., June 1, 2018. The instant appeal was filed on July 9, 2018. Therefore,
the rule announced in Walker governs.
-4-
J-S27012-19
Walker mandates that, after June 1, 2018, failure to file separate
notices in accordance with the Official Note to Rule 341(a) “will result in
quashal of the appeal.” Walker, 185 A.3d at 977. The Supreme Court did
not carve out any exceptions to this rule and we have no authority to do so.
Moreover, the plain text of the commentary to Rule 341 states, “Where,
however, 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.” Pa.R.A.P. 341 cmt. (emphasis added). Accordingly, we quash this
appeal.
Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/21/2019
-5-
Com. v. Bonnor, D.
Combined Opinion