J-S41017-19
2019 PA Super 241
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LAWRENCE EDWIN CREESE, SR. :
:
Appellant : No. 2066 MDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-67-CR-0001064-2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LAWRENCE EDWIN CREESE, SR. :
:
Appellant : No. 2067 MDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-67-CR-0004360-2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LAWRENCE EDWIN CREESE, SR. :
:
Appellant : No. 2068 MDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-67-CR-0004367-2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
J-S41017-19
:
:
LAWRENCE EDWIN CREESE, SR. :
:
Appellant : No. 2069 MDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-67-CR-0004379-2013
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
OPINION BY MURRAY, J.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2019
Lawrence Edwin Creese, Sr. (Appellant) appeals from the order
dismissing as untimely his petition seeking relief under the Post Conviction
Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we are
constrained to quash this appeal.
On December 18, 2018, the PCRA court issued its order denying relief;
the order listed four docket numbers. On December 20, 2018, Appellant filed
a timely appeal “that included all docket numbers in each related case.”
Answer to Rule to Show Cause, 1/22/19, at 1. Our review of the record reveals
that four separate photocopies of the notice of appeal, each listing all four
docket numbers, were entered on the trial court docket, and accordingly, on
this Court’s docket.
On January 11, 2019, we issued a rule to show cause for Appellant to
explain why we should not quash the appeal based on our Supreme Court’s
decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
-2-
J-S41017-19
that “where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket,
separate notices of appeal must be filed for each of those cases”). See Order
– Rule to Show Cause, 12/11/19.
On January 22, 2019, Appellant filed a response, in which he admitted
to filing the notice of appeal that included all four docket numbers, and
conceding “counsel was previously unaware of the rule in Commonwealth v.
Walker.” Response to Rule to Show Cause, 1/22/19. Appellant further
averred that no party would be prejudiced by “this technical error.” Id. By
order dated January 25, 2019, this Court discharged the rule to show cause
and referred the matter to the merits panel.
The Official Note to Rule 341(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure, which was amended in 2013, provides:
Where, however, one or more orders resolves issues arising on
more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment,
separate notices of appeals must be filed. Commonwealth v.
C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111, 113 & n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quashing
appeal taken by single notice of appeal from order on remand for
consideration under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons’ judgments
of sentence).
Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.
Until recently, it was common for courts of this Commonwealth to allow
appeals to proceed, even if they failed to conform with Rule 341. See, e.g.,
In the Interest of P.S., 158 A.3d 643, 648 (Pa. Super. 2017) (noting
common practice to allow appeals to proceed if the issues involved are nearly
identical, no objection has been raised, and the period for appeal has expired).
-3-
J-S41017-19
In Commonwealth v. Walker, however, our Supreme Court held
unequivocally that “prospectively, where a single order resolves issues arising
on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for
each case.” Walker, 185 A.3d at 971 (emphasis added). The Supreme
Court observed that the Official Note to Rule 341 of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure “provides a bright-line mandatory instruction to
practitioners to file separate notices of appeal,” and accordingly, determined
that “the failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the
appeal.”
Id. at 976-77 (emphasis added). Because this mandate was
contrary to decades of case law, the Supreme Court specified that it would
apply only to appeals filed after June 1, 2018, the date Walker was filed.
Id.
Recently, this Court stated:
In Walker, our Supreme Court construed the [Rule 341] language
as constituting “a bright-line mandatory instruction to
practitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” Walker, 185 A.3d
at 976-77. Therefore, the Walker Court held that “the 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.”
Id. at 977. . . . Accordingly, the Walker Court directed that “in
future cases Rule 341 will, in accordance with its Official Note,
require that when a single order resolves issues arising on more
than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be
filed. The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Id.
(emphasis added).
Commonwealth v. Williams, 206 A.3d 573, 575–76 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(emphasis in original).
-4-
J-S41017-19
Instantly, we apply Walker because Appellant’s notice of appeal was
filed after the Walker decision requiring that an appellant file a separate
notice of appeal for each lower court docket number. Here, the record
contains four identical notices of appeal listing all four docket numbers. After
careful consideration, we find that Appellant has not met Walker’s mandate.1
We read our Supreme Court’s decision in 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 number.2 We recognize the severity of
this application. However, if we consistently apply Walker by quashing any
____________________________________________
1 Given Appellant’s January 22, 2019 response to this Court’s rule to show
cause, in which counsel states “A timely notice of appeal in this matter was
filed . . .” and “undersigned counsel was previously unaware of the ruling in
Walker . . .” (emphasis added), it appears that one notice of appeal listing all
four docket numbers was simply photocopied and placed in each record,
conceivably by the clerk of courts. It is impossible to be sure whether that
occurred, or whether counsel himself filed four copies of the notice of appeal.
2 Our Court will then assign an appellate docket number to each case, and
either consolidate the appeals by per curiam order, or assign them consecutive
journal numbers, at which point the panel may then consolidate the appeals
if it so chooses. The four captions in this appeal, which were generated
administratively, do not cure the Walker violation. The clerk of courts have
purely ministerial powers. See In re Administrative Order, 936 A.2d 1, 9
(Pa. 2007) (“It is ‘well settled’ in the intermediate appellate courts of this
Commonwealth that the role of the Prothonotary of the court of common
pleas, while vitally important, is purely ministerial. … Further, as ‘[t]he
Prothonotary is merely the clerk of the court of Common Pleas[,] [h]e has no
judicial powers, nor does he have power to act as attorney for others by
virtue of his office.”) (emphasis added)).
-5-
J-S41017-19
notice of appeal filed after June 1, 2018 that contains more than one docket
number, consistent with Walker, and regardless of what occurred in the
actual filing of that notice of appeal below, it will ultimately benefit appellants
and counsel by providing clear guidance on how to satisfy Walker and Rule
341(a). Conversely, if we create exceptions to Rule 341 and Walker to avoid
a harsh result, we will return to a scenario that the amendment to the Official
Note and Walker sought to abrogate. In addition, we will do a disservice to
appellants and counsel by applying the rule in a manner that is both confusing
and inconsistent, the latter of which would be patently unfair.
Consistent with the foregoing, we are constrained to quash the appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Judge Lazarus joins the Opinion.
Judge Strassburger files a Dissenting Opinion.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 08/14/2019
-6-
