J. S15021/17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
KHALIF RUTLEDGE, :
:
Appellant : No. 3733 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 23, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0012550-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 16, 2017
Appellant, Khalif Rutledge, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence
entered on July 23, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County following his convictions after a bench trial for three violations of the
Uniform Firearms Act, Terroristic Threats, Simple Assault, and Recklessly
Endangering Another Person. We quash this appeal.
A detailed recitation of the facts is not necessary to our disposition.
On July 23, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term
of 2½ to 5 years’ imprisonment, followed by a consecutive term of 5 years’
probation. The trial court denied Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration of
Sentence on October 16, 2015. Appellant filed a pro se Notice of Appeal on
December 2, 2015.
J. S15021/17
On January 13, 2016, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause directing
Appellant to explain why the appeal should not be quashed as untimely
where Appellant did not file the Notice of Appeal within 30 days of the
underlying order, i.e., by November 16, 2015.1 Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2).
In response, Appellant’s counsel states that Appellant filed this appeal
“pro se without the knowledge or any input from counsel” and “[t]herefore,
[counsel] has no knowledge regarding this appeal and cannot offer any
information either for or against it.” Response to Rule to Show Cause Order,
filed 1/22/16, at ¶5-¶6. Appellant did not file a pro se response, and
Appellant’s counsel did not address the timeliness issue in Appellant’s Brief.
The issue was referred to this panel for disposition.
Before addressing the issues raised on appeal, we must determine
whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Commonwealth v.
Liebensperger, 904 A.2d 40, 43 (Pa. Super. 2006); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a)
(“Except as otherwise prescribed by this rule, the notice of appeal required
by Rule 902 (manner of taking appeal) shall be filed within 30 days after the
entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.”).
The certified record indicates that Appellant filed his handwritten
Notice of Appeal on December 2, 2015, even though Appellant dated his
document November 9, 2015. Appellant’s postmarked envelope also shows
December 2, 2015, as the date of mailing.
1
November 15, 2015, was a Sunday. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908.
-2-
J. S15021/17
Appellant has failed to provide “a properly executed prisoner cash slip
or other reasonably verifiable evidence of the date that the prisoner [timely]
deposited the pro se filing with the prison authorities.” Pa.R.A.P. 121(a).
No other evidence included in the certified record reasonably verifies that
Appellant timely filed his Notice of Appeal.
Finally, “the record contains no evidence of extraordinary
circumstances such as a court holiday or closing or a breakdown in the
operations of the court” that would excuse his untimely filing.
Commonwealth v. Burks, 102 A.3d 497, 500 (Pa. Super. 2014).
Appellant’s filing of his Notice of Appeal on December 2, 2015, was clearly
untimely.
Accordingly, we quash the appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/16/2017
-3-
Com. v. Rutledge, K.
Combined Opinion