Com. v. Adams, D. ( 2019 )

J-S20012-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DAVID JAMAL ADAMS, :
:
Appellant : No. 883 WDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 17, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000290-2015,
CP-07-CR-0000315-2015, CP-07-CR-0000316-2015,
CP-07-CR-0001554-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 05, 2019
David Jamal Adams (“Adams”) appeals from the Order denying his
Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1
Based on our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185
A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), we quash the appeal.
The Altoona Police Department filed Criminal Complaints against Adams
for delivery of controlled substances2 and related offenses that took place on
August 1, 2013, and August 8, 2013. The PCRA court summarized what next
transpired as follows:
The Altoona Police Department effectuated the arrest of [Adams]
on or about January 17, 2015. As a result of this arrest, the
____________________________________________
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-S20012-19
[police] charged [Adams] with the crime of flight to avoid
apprehension, trial or punishment[,] and [] public drunkenness.
… [A] criminal jury trial occurred on June 22 through June
24, 2015. After the conclusion of the criminal jury trial, the jury
returned guilty verdicts on all charges….
… [The trial court sentenced Adams on September 3, 2015.]
[Adams’s] total sentence resulted in a … minimum of sixty-eight
(68) months to a maximum of one-hundred thirty-six (136)
months in the State Correctional Institution….
On the same date as the sentencing proceeding in this
matter, [the trial court] conducted a Gagnon II[3] [p]robation
[r]evocation [h]earing. This proceeding was docketed at 2009 CR
1554. The [trial court] sentenced [Adams] to a period of
incarceration of twenty-four (24) months for violating his
probation on a [firearms charge]. [The trial court] ordered that
sentence to run consecutive to the above sentence.
PCRA Court Opinion, 5/17/18, at 2-3 (footnote added). On direct appeal, this
Court affirmed Adams’s judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Adams,
154 A.3d 871 (Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished memorandum). Adams did not
seek allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Adams timely filed the instant PCRA Petition on October 18, 2016, and
subsequently filed a counseled Amended PCRA Petition. After a hearing, the
PCRA court dismissed Adams’s Petition. Thereafter, Adams filed a single
Notice of Appeal, listing the multiple docket numbers for his judgments of
sentence. Adams also timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise
Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
____________________________________________
3 See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).
-2-
J-S20012-19
Adams presents the following claims for our review:
A. Whether [] Adams[’s] appeal should be dismissed for failure to
comply with [] Walker … and Pa.R.A[.P.] 341(a)?
B. Whether the PCRA court erred/abused its discretion by failing
to find [] Adams’s trial counsel ineffective for failing to call
Christina Brumbaugh as an alibi witness, and to testify to the
Altoona Police Department’s deception in the use of a Facebook
page to apprehend [] Adams?
C. Whether the PCRA court erred/abused its discretion by failing
to find [] Adams’s trial counsel ineffective for failing to call
Callie Jeter as an alibi witness, and to testify that [] Adams
drove a different car from what was used by the suspect in the
crimes for which [] Adams was convicted?
D. Whether the [PCRA] court improperly admitted an alleged
statement made by potential defense witness [] Brumbaugh?
Brief for Appellant at 4 (emphasis omitted, issues renumbered).
Adams first claims that his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to
comply with Walker and Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). Brief for Appellant at 22. Adams
asserts that because he filed his original Notice of Appeal pro se, his failure to
comply with Walker and Rule 341(a) should be excused. Id. at 23.
Until recently, it was common practice for courts of this Commonwealth
to allow appeals to proceed, even if they failed to conform with Pa.R.A.P. 341.
In the Interest of: P.S., 158 A.3d 643, 648 (Pa. Super. 2017) (footnote
omitted). While our Supreme Court recognized that the practice of appealing
multiple orders in a single appeal is discouraged under Pa.R.A.P. 512 (joint
appeals), it previously determined that “appellate courts have not generally
quashed [such] appeals, provided that the issues involved are nearly identical,
-3-
J-S20012-19
no objection to the appeal has been raised, and the period for appeal has
expired.” K.H. v. J.R., 826 A.2d 863, 870 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted).
However, on June 1, 2018, our Supreme Court, in Walker, held that
this practice violates Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341, and the
failure to file separate notices of appeal for separate dockets must result in
quashal of the appeal. See Walker, 185 A.3d at 977. In particular, our
Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he Official Note to Rule 341 provides a
bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of
appeal…. The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the
appeal.” Id. at 976-77. The Walker Court further announced that its holding
would apply prospectively only. Id. at 977. Only appeals filed after June 1,
2018, the date Walker was filed, would require the filing of separate notices
of appeal. Id.
Instantly, on June 13, 2018, Adams, pro se, filed a single Notice of
Appeal from the Order that denied PCRA relief at four separate docket
numbers. On August 15, 2018, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why
the appeal should not be quashed, noting that the Notice of Appeal contained
multiple docket numbers. On August 28, 2018, appointed counsel for Adams
filed a Response. The Response acknowledged that Adams was appealing one
PCRA court Order, which addressed each of the docket numbers. Counsel also
indicated that he was seeking permission to amend and file separate Notices
-4-
J-S20012-19
of Appeal in the PCRA court.4 Upon subsequent inquiry by our Superior Court
Prothonotary, we have ascertained that no such permission was requested of,
or granted by, the PCRA court, and no amended Notices of Appeal have been
filed and forwarded to this Court.
As there is nothing of record indicating Adams’s compliance with
Walker, we are constrained to quash the instant appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/5/2019
____________________________________________
4This Court dismissed the Rule, directing the issue to the attention of the
merits panel.
-5-