Com. v. Garcia-Quintero, J. ( 2015 )

J-A14045-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JOSE GARCIA-QUINTERO, :
:
Appellant : No. 1080 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 28, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0001712-2012
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., JENKINS and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 24, 2015
Jose Garcia-Quintero (Appellant) appeals from a judgment of sentence
imposed after a jury convicted him of persons not to possess firearms and
firearms not to be carried without a license.1 We quash this appeal.
Given the manner in which we dispose of this appeal, we need to
provide only a brief summary of the background underlying the matter. On
the evening of December 24, 2011, Appellant was a passenger in a vehicle
driven by Jesus Beltran-Leon. An officer initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle
because it was traveling without its headlights on. The stop resulted in both
parties being arrested.
A jury trial was held from September 11-13, 2013[,] and
the jury found [] Appellant guilty of Count I, persons not to
1
The jury deadlocked on the charge of possession of cocaine. In addition,
the trial court convicted Appellant of the summary offense of restrictions on
alcoholic beverages.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A14045-15
possess firearms, under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1), and Count
II, firearms not to be carried without a license, under 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1). [On October 28, 2013, the trial court]
sentenced Appellant to four to eight years of incarceration on
Count I, and three to six years of incarceration on Count II, to
run concurrently.
[]Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on December 13,
2013 and raised three issues: insufficient evidence, verdict
against the weight of the evidence, and a pretrial suppression
issue. … The court denied [Appellant’s] post-sentence motion on
May 22, 2014. [Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 23,
2014. The trial court directed Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). Appellant filed a 1925(b) statement, and the trial court
issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).]
Trial Court Opinion, 8/22/2014, at 1-3 (citations and unnecessary
capitalization omitted).
In his brief to this Court, Appellant asks us to consider three
questions. Before we can reach the merits of those issues, we must address
whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
In cases where no post-sentence motions (or
Commonwealth’s motions to modify sentence) are filed, a
defendant must file an appeal within 30 days of imposition of
sentence in open court. If a defendant files a timely post-
sentence motion, the appeal period does not begin to run until
the motion is decided. Except in circumstances not applicable
here, a defendant must file a post-sentence motion within ten
days of imposition of sentence.
An untimely post-sentence motion does not toll the
appeal period.
Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242, 1244 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
-2-
J-A14045-15
Here, Appellant was sentenced on October 28, 2013, and he did not
file his post-sentence motion until December 13, 2013. Moreover, Appellant
did not file his notice of appeal until June 23, 2014. Thus, the appeal is
untimely filed on its face. For this reason, this Court issued an order
directing Appellant to show cause as to why the Court should not quash the
appeal as untimely filed.
In response to that order, Appellant claimed that the trial court
“directed that Appellant be given 45 days from the date of transcription of
the record to file a post-sentence motion or an appeal to the Superior
Court.” Motion to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not Be Quashed As
Untimely, 10/10/2014, at ¶3. According to Appellant, “[a]s per the [c]ourt’s
instructions, Appellant filed a timely Post-Sentence Motion within forty-five
days of transcription of the record on December 13, 2013.” Id. at ¶4.
Appellant further contended that, because he ultimately filed his notice of
appeal within 30 days of the trial court’s order disposing of his post-sentence
motion, he timely filed his notice of appeal. We disagree.
Appellant was tried and sentenced jointly with Beltran-Leon. After the
court sentenced Beltran-Leon, Beltran-Leon’s counsel informed the court
that counsel had filed a motion to withdraw, that Beltran-Leon had filed for a
public defender, and that new counsel had not been appointed. The court
responded:
Very well. We’ll direct, again, the transcription of the record,
expand the time within which to file post-sentence motions for
-3-
J-A14045-15
45 days as well as time within which to file a[n] appeal. That
can be expanded if the transcript has not been provided to the
public defender for good cause shown.
N.T., 10/28/2013, at 10.
After the court sentenced Appellant, the court stated, “We will direct
the transcription of the record as we have done already through [Beltran-
Leon’s counsel] and you’ll have 45 days within which to file a post-trial
motion or an appeal….” Id. at 11. Thus, the court informed the parties that
they had 45 days to file a post-sentence motion or an appeal; the court did
not tie the 45 days to the date the record was transcribed. The court did
allow for the expansion of that time “if the transcript has not been provided
to the public defender for good cause shown.” N.T., 10/28/2013, at 10.
However, Appellant does not contend that he or Beltran-Leon sought to
expand the time frame for filing post-sentence motions or appeals due to the
transcript not being provided to either party.
It is clear that the trial court misinformed the parties regarding the
time within which Appellant and Leon-Beltran had to file post-sentence
motions and appeals. That misinformation constituted a breakdown in the
court’s processes. See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493,
498 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“The courts of this Commonwealth have held that a
court breakdown occurred in instances where the trial court, at the time of
sentencing, either failed to advise Appellant of his post-sentence and
appellate rights or misadvised him.”). The breakdown relieved Appellant
-4-
J-A14045-15
from filing his post-sentence motion within 10 days of the judgment of
sentence and from filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment of
sentence.
However, the breakdown did not relieve Appellant from following the
timeline set by the trial court. The court required Appellant to file his post-
sentence motion or notice of appeal within 45 days of October 28, 2013.
Appellant untimely filed his motion 46 days later on December 13, 2013, and
he filed his notice of appeal June 23, 2014. Utilizing the general principles of
law noted above, an untimely-filed post-sentence motion does not toll the
appeal period. We, therefore, conclude that Appellant untimely filed his
notice of appeal. Consequently, this Court does not have jurisdiction to
entertain the appeal. For these reasons, we quash this appeal.2
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/24/2015
2
Beltran-Leon appealed his judgment of sentence, and this Court affirmed.
Commonwealth v. Beltran-Leon, 108 A.3d 126 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(unpublished memorandum). In so doing, this Court noted that Beltran-
Leon untimely filed his notice of appeal. The Court refused to quash the
appeal due to the same breakdown in the court’s processes that occurred in
this case. Id. at 3-4 n.4. However, unlike Appellant, Beltran-Leon filed his
notice of appeal on December 12, 2013, i.e., within 45 days of his judgment
of sentence. Thus, Beltran-Leon complied with the trial court’s timeline.
-5-