COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DANIEL CASEY (NO. CP-14-CR-1377- :
2017, CP-14-CR-0781-2018, CP-14- :
CR-1536-2018) : No. 7 MDM 2019
:
Petitioner :
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
v. :
:
:
BRENDAN PATRICK YOUNG (NO. CP- :
14-CR-1389-2017, CP-14-CR-0784- :
2018, CP-14-CR-1540-2018) :
:
Petitioner :
Petition for Permission to Appeal filed February 14, 2019, from the
November 26, 2018 Order, as Amended by the January 15, 2019 Order
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at Nos: CP-14-CR-1377-2017; CP-14-CR-0781-2018;
CP1-4-CR-1536-2018; CP-14-CR-1389-2017; CP-14-CR-0784-2018;
CP-14-CR-1540-2018
BEFORE: STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*
CONCURRING OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED AUGUST 28, 2019
I agree with the denial of the petition for permission to appeal, but reach
that conclusion by a slightly different route than the Majority. I therefore
concur.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-M09001-19
In Commonwealth v. Walker, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
explained that “where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one
docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case.”
,
971 (Pa. 2018). The Court stated that “[t]he failure to do so requires the
appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. at 977. However, the Court refused
to apply the rule to the case before it, and instead announced that the rule
would apply prospectively only. Id. at 971, 977. It therefore reversed the
order of this Court quashing the Commonwealth’s appeal. It also directed the
Appellate Procedural Rules Committee to amend the text and Official Note to
the rule governing appeals from final orders, Pa.R.A.P. 341, to state the
requirement explicitly. Id. at 977. Most relevant here, it also directed the
Committee to amend the rules relating to interlocutory appeals – including the
rule at issue here, Pa.R.A.P. 312 – to “conform[], as necessary to Rule 341 in
this regard.” Id. at 977-78.
Neither the actual holding of Walker – to reverse this Court’s order
quashing the Commonwealth’s appeal – nor the rule it announced – “where a
single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices
of appeal must be filed for each case,” on pain of quashal – is directly
implicated here. However, the Court’s direction to the Appellate Procedural
Rules Committee to amend Rule 312 to “conform[], as necessary to Rule 341
in this regard” strongly indicates the proper decision here. Id. at 977-78. I
thus conclude, like the Majority, that “Petitioners’ failure to file a separate
-2-
J-M09001-19
appeal petition for each docket number is fatal to their petition for permission
to appeal.” Majority Opinion at 5.
-3-
