Opinion
J-S51036-19 No. 729 MDA 2019 No. 730 MDA 2019 No. 731 MDA 2019 No. 732 MDA 2019 No. 733 MDA 2019
11-07-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. HAROLD DICKSON Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. HAROLD DAVID DICKSON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001667-2015 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001669-2015 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001666-2015 Appeal from the Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001665-2015 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001672-2015 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J. DISSENTNG MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
I respectfully dissent because I think Appellant complied with the express dictates of Commonwealth v. Walker , 646 Pa. 456, 469, 185 A.3d 969, 977 (2018) (holding prospectively: "[T]he proper practice under Rule 341(a) is to file separate appeals from an order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket. The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the appeal"). Walker relied on the 2013 amendment to the Official Comment of Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) (stating where 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).
Recently, in Commonwealth v. Creese , 2019 PA Super 241 (filed August 14, 2019), a panel of this Court interpreted Walker "as instructing that we may not accept a notice of appeal listing multiple docket numbers, even if those notices are included in the records of each case. Instead a notice of appeal may contain only one docket." Id. at *2. In my opinion, Creese represents an unwarranted extension of Walker , because nothing in Walker includes a "one docket number only per notice of appeal" mandate. Said another way, nothing in Walker prohibits an appellant from filing a notice of appeal listing more than one docket number, so long as the appellant files a separate notice of appeal at each relevant underlying docket, which is consistent with Rule 341(a). Further, Creese decidedly penalizes appellants, especially pro se appellants, who had absolutely no way to intuit the additional requirement Creese grafted onto Walker. Here, Appellant filed five separate pro se notices of appeal, one at each underlying docket. In my view, Appellant complied with Walker , even though he included all five docket numbers on each notice of appeal. Instead of quashing these consolidated appeals under Walker , based on the "infused" Creese technicality, I would affirm the PCRA court's decision, based on statutory untimeliness ( see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)) and Rule 1925(b) waiver. Accordingly, I dissent.