Opinion
No. 777 CAP
12-24-2019
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Charles Ray HICKS, Appellant
James Alan Swetz, Esq., Cramer, Swetz, McManus & Jordan, P.C., for Appellant. Elmer D. Christine Jr., Esq., Michael Mancuso, Esq., Michael T. Rakaczewski, Esq., Monroe County District Attorney's Office, Ronald Eisenberg, Esq., Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for Appellee.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 24th day of December, 2019, the Notice of Appeal is QUASHED. The collateral order doctrine requires the order to be separable from the main cause of action and involve a right that is too important to be denied review and will be irreparably lost if review is postponed until final judgment. See Pa.R.A.P. 313. Appellant has advanced no claim that the PCRA court's discovery order violates a privilege held by him, and no privilege enjoyed by Appellant appears to be implicated in relation to the PCRA court's May 7, 2019 order. Compare Commonwealth v. Williams, 624 Pa. 405, 86 A.3d 771 (2014) (allowing a Commonwealth appeal of a PCRA discovery order that purportedly infringed on the work-product doctrine).
Accordingly, this appeal is not properly before this Court. See Commonwealth v. Saunders, 483 Pa. 29, 394 A.2d 522, 524 n.2 (1978) (stating that an issue involving this Court's jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte).