Com. v. Glushko, A. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-S10033-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    ANDREW P. GLUSHKO
    Appellant                No. 2387 EDA 2016
    Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2016
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0001053-2015
    BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and SOLANO, J.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY SOLANO, J.:                           FILED MAY 12, 2017
    Appellant, Andrew P. Glushko, appeals pro se from the trial court’s
    order of May 10, 2016, which ordered that his pro se motions be forwarded
    to his counsel of record. We quash the appeal.
    On November 5, 2015, Appellant pleaded guilty to failing to register as
    a sexual offender with the Pennsylvania State Police. 1 The court sentenced
    him on January 12, 2016, to 2-4 years’ incarceration. He did not file a direct
    appeal.     On February 19, 2016, Appellant filed a motion for return of
    property and a “motion to be present through video.” He also filed a motion
    to proceed pro se.       On May 10, 2016, the court issued an order directing
    that these three motions be forwarded to plea counsel, pursuant to
    ____________________________________________
    1
    18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1(a)(3).
    J-S10033-17
    Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(a)(4).2 Subsequently, counsel filed a petition to withdraw,
    which the court granted on July 5, 2016.
    On July 27, 2016, Appellant, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal and
    a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).       In the notice of appeal, Appellant stated that he was
    appealing “from the order entered on May 10, 2016,” and he attached a
    copy of said order.
    On September 16, 2016, this Court issued a rule to show cause asking
    Appellant to explain, within ten days of the date of the order, why the appeal
    should not be quashed as untimely. On September 21, 2016, Appellant filed
    a response. The Court did not discharge the rule to show cause order, and
    deferred the jurisdictional issue to this panel.
    On October 18, 2016, Appellant filed a brief to this Court, and,
    pursuant to the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 2115, he stated that he was
    appealing “Order, 5/10/16, p. A6.”             Page A6 of the brief is a copy of the
    order of May 10, 2016.
    ____________________________________________
    2
    Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(a)(4) states:
    In any case in which a defendant is represented by an attorney,
    if the defendant submits for filing a written motion, notice, or
    document that has not been signed by the defendant’s attorney,
    the clerk of courts shall accept it for filing, time stamp it with the
    date of receipt and make a docket entry reflecting the date of
    receipt, and place the document in the criminal case file. A copy
    of the time stamped document shall be forwarded to the
    defendant’s attorney and the attorney for the Commonwealth
    within 10 days of receipt.
    -2-
    J-S10033-17
    We quash Appellant’s appeal for two reasons. First, under Pa.R.A.P.
    903, an appeal “shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order
    from which the appeal is taken.” The 30-day requirement is jurisdictional.
    Commonwealth v. Pena, 
    31 A.3d 704
    , 706 (Pa. Super. 2011). Appellant
    thus had until June 9, 2016, to file an appeal from the order of May 10,
    2016. As Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until July 27, 2016, his
    appeal is untimely.
    Second, the order of May 10, 2016, was interlocutory, as it merely
    ordered the clerk of courts to comply with Rule 576 by forwarding copies of
    Appellant’s motions to his counsel. The court’s order did not dispose of the
    substance of Appellant’s motions, and, consequently, was not a final order.
    See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) (“an appeal may be taken as of right from any final
    order of a government unit or trial court”), 341(b)(1) (defining a “final
    order” as “any order that disposes of all claims and of all parties”). Nor was
    the order one from which an interlocutory appeal could be taken as of right.
    See generally Pa.R.A.P. 311. This Court therefore is without jurisdiction to
    hear Appellant’s appeal.
    Appeal quashed.
    -3-
    J-S10033-17
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 5/12/2017
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Com. v. Glushko, A. No. 2387 EDA 2016

Filed Date: 5/12/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024