Com. v. Walker, D. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • J-A20043-19
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee              :
    :
    v.                           :
    :
    DIANA HURRICANE WALKER                    :
    :
    Appellant             :       No. 1601 MDA 2018
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 14, 2018
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0005399-2017,
    CP-36-CR-0005434-2017
    BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:                  FILED AUGUST 09, 2019
    Appellant, Diana Hurricane Walker, appeals from the judgment of
    sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following
    her guilty plea to three counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled
    substance   (“PWID”).      Based    on   our   Supreme    Court’s   decision   in
    Commonwealth v. Walker, ___ Pa. ___, 
    185 A.3d 969
    (2018), we must
    quash the appeal.
    The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
    July 24, 2014, and August 22, 2014, a confidential informant (“CI”) arranged
    to purchase oxycodone from Appellant. During the transactions, Appellant
    delivered a total of 125 tablets of oxycodone to the CI in exchange for
    prerecorded funds.    Three years later, on September 8, 2017, detectives
    executed a search warrant at Appellant’s home and discovered 51 tablets of
    J-A20043-19
    acetaminophen and hydrocodone, a Schedule II controlled substance.
    Appellant admitted owning the drugs, and she was arrested.                The
    Commonwealth charged Appellant at two separate docket numbers for all the
    PWID offenses.
    On May 18, 2018, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of PWID (for the
    2014 offenses) at Docket No. 5399-2017, and one count of PWID (for the
    2017 offense) at Docket No. 5434-2017. The court deferred sentencing and
    ordered the completion of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report.
    Following completion of the PSI, the court sentenced Appellant on August 14,
    2018, to an aggregate term of three (3) to six (6) years’ incarceration. On
    August 23, 2018, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which the
    court denied on August 27, 2018. Appellant filed a single notice of appeal at
    Docket No. 5399-2017 on September 26, 2018. On October 1, 2018, the
    court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
    appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on October 19, 2018.
    Preliminarily, on June 1, 2018, the Walker Court held that the common
    practice of filing a single notice of appeal from an order involving more than
    one docket would no longer be tolerated, because the practice violates
    Pa.R.A.P. 341, which requires the filing of “separate appeals from an order
    that resolves issues arising on more than one docket.”     
    Walker, supra
    at
    ___, 185 A.3d at 977.     The failure to file separate appeals under these
    circumstances “requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” 
    Id. -2- J-A20043-19
    Instantly, Appellant’s case involves two separate dockets at Nos. 5399-
    2017 and 5434-2017. Appellant filed a single notice of appeal at Docket No.
    5399 from the judgments of sentence imposed involving two distinct docket
    numbers. The notice of appeal was filed only at Docket No.5399-2017 but
    shows Docket No. 5434-2017 printed in the caption and Docket No. 5399-
    2017 handwritten above it, indicating the appeal involves both docket
    numbers. Likewise, Appellant’s argument on appeal demonstrates Appellant
    is challenging the sentences at both dockets.   Appellant’s single notice of
    appeal was filed on September 26, 2018, which postdates the Walker
    decision. In this Court’s November 8, 2018 order, we directed Appellant to
    show cause why the appeal should not be quashed under the Walker rule.
    Appellant did not respond, and the rule to show cause was discharged and
    referred to the assigned merits panel. Absent more, we are bound by the
    Walker decision and must quash this appeal.
    Appeal quashed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/9/2019
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1601 MDA 2018

Filed Date: 8/9/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024