Opinion
J-S30011-19 No. 2059 EDA 2018
10-01-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAPHEL BERRIEN III Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered June 20, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0001131-2017, CP-39-CR-0001132-2017 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:
Raphel Berrien III appeals from the order entered on June 20, 2018 in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas. After careful review, we quash this appeal.
In light of our disposition, a complete recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary. On April 26, 2018, after a jury trial, Berrien was found guilty of one count each of stalking and harassment under CP-39-CR-0001131-2017 and one count of criminal trespass under CP-39-CR-0001132-2017.
On June 5, 2018, under CP-39-CR-0001131-2017, Berrien was sentenced to forty to eighty-four months' incarceration on the stalking charge and six to twelve months' incarceration on the harassment charge, to run concurrent to each other. Additionally, under CP-39-CR-0001132-2017, he was sentenced to eighteen to thirty-six months' incarceration for criminal trespass. This sentence was to run consecutively to the sentences imposed under CP-39-CR-0001131-2017 for an aggregate sentence of fifty-eight to one hundred and twenty months' incarceration.
Berrien filed a post sentence motion in which he argued the jury verdict was against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and argued that his sentence should be reduced. On June 20, 2018, the trial court denied Berrien's post sentence motion. This timely appeal followed.
Before we reach the issues presented by Berrien on appeal, we must first address the fact that he filed a single notice of appeal raising issues that relate to two docket numbers.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that "where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case." Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969, 971 (Pa. 2018). The Court explained "[t]he Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal" and "[t]he failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the appeal." Id., at 976-977; see also Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.
However, the Court in Walker declined to apply the rule to the case before it, because to do so would run "contrary to decades of case law from [the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] and the intermediate appellate courts that, while disapproving of the practice of failing to file multiple appeals, seldom quashed appeals as a result." Id. Thus, the Supreme Court instructed that in all future cases, a failure to file a notice of appeal for each lower court docket will result in quashal of the appeal.
Here, Berrien filed his notice of appeal on July 13, 2018. On February 7, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause directing Berrien to demonstrate why the appeal should not be quashed pursuant to Walker. Berrien filed a pro se response. By order entered April 11, 2019, this Court discharged its rule to show cause and referred the matter to the merits panel.
Unfortunately, Berrien failed to raise any reasonable or pertinent arguments in his response to the rule to show cause. In his response, Berrien not only failed to address Walker at all, but he also seemingly confused the Court of Common Pleas docket numbers with the Superior Court docket numbers as his brief argument centers around why his appeal at docket number 2059 EDA 2018 should not be dismissed as a duplicate of 768 EDA 2018. The latter matter refers to a completely separate order regarding an application for bail pending appeal, which is not at issue here.
The Walker opinion was filed on June 1, 2018. Berrien's singular notice of appeal, inclusive of two docket numbers, CP-39-CR-0001131-2018, and CP-39-CR-0001132-2018, was filed on July 13, 2018. Berrien's appeal unambiguously raises issues pertaining to more than one lower court docket. Because he filed this notice after the decision in Walker , we are constrained to quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/1/19