Opinion
J-S33016-19 No. 91 MDA 2019
09-10-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES LEE STANLEY Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 13, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001321-2005, CP-06-CR-0003610-2004 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.:
James Lee Stanley appeals, pro se, from the order entered on December 13, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, denying Stanley relief on his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 41 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq. After granting counsel's motion to withdraw, the PCRA court determined Stanley's petition, his third, was untimely and none of the statutory timeliness exception found in the PCRA applied. Stanley filed this timely appeal. After a thorough review of the submission by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we quash the appeal for failure to follow our Supreme Court's ruling in Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018).
The PCRA court allowed appointed counsel to withdraw from representation after filing a Turner/Finley no-merit letter.
Walker requires an appellant to file separate notices of appeal where a single order disposes of issues under multiple docket numbers. Stanley's PCRA petition and appeal both address his convictions under docket numbers CP-06-CR-3610-04 and CP-06-CR-1321-05. Accordingly, Stanley was required to file separate appeals for each docket. He did not. Therefore, under the dictates of Walker , we quash the appeal.
In addition to applying Walker , we also reviewed Stanley's claim and the PCRA court's disposition of the petition. We see no error in the PCRA court's finding that the petition, filed approximately eight years late, was untimely and none of the statutory timeliness exceptions found at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) applied. Had we addressed the merits of this appeal in the body of this decision, Stanley would not have prevailed. However, because of our disposition of this matter, we will not provide an analysis of the issue.
Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/10/2019