Opinion
J-S04035-19 No. 976 MDA 2018 No. 977 MDA 2018 No. 978 MDA 2018
03-18-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NIKITA REBECKA VALENCIA Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NIKITA R. VALENCIA Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 9, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000433-2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 9, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000986-2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 9, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0001526-2017 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Nikita Valencia, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on May 9, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County following the revocation of her probationary sentences under three separate docket numbers. Appellant received an aggregate sentence of two to six years' incarceration, which she contends represented an abuse of the court's sentencing discretion. Appellant also contends she entered an unknowing waiver of a pre-sentence investigation after being wrongly advised in open court that she was eligible for a Lycoming County Treatment Court program. Contemporaneous with this appeal, Appellant's counsel has filed a petition to withdraw from representation and an Anders brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon , 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981). Because this appeal is untimely, however, we have no jurisdiction to entertain it, and must quash the appeal.
The trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion provides an apt recitation of facts and procedural history that we adopt as our own. For our purposes, we observe that Appellant was sentenced on May 9, 2018 at three trial court docket numbers, following the revocation of her probation. On June 11, 2018, Appellant filed a single notice of appeal bearing all three trial court docket numbers.
Because we quash this appeal as untimely filed under Pa.R.A.P. 903(a), we need not address whether quashal was required pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969, 971 (Pa. 2018) (holding "prospectively, where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case."), which was filed prior to the trial court's order in the case sub judice.
The last day of the 30-day appeal period, therefore, was Friday, June 8, 2018. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of order being appealed). The instant appeal, however, was not filed until Monday, June 11, 2018—three days beyond the expiration of the appeal period.
It is well settled that the timeliness of an appeal implicates our jurisdiction and may be considered sua sponte. Jurisdiction is vested in the Superior Court upon the filing of a timely notice of appeal. Commonwealth v. Crawford , 17 A.3d 1279, 1281 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations omitted). Moreover, this Court may not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 105(b) ; Commonwealth v. Moir , 766 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super. 2000).
We note, further, that 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 Appellant's untimely filing. See Commonwealth v. Burks , 102 A.3d 497, 500 (Pa.Super. 2014).
This appeal is untimely and we have no jurisdiction to entertain the merits therein. Accordingly, we quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed. Petition for leave to withdraw as counsel dismissed as moot. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 03/18/2019
Image materials not available for display.