Com. v. Imhoff, D. ( 2020 )

J-S62014-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DAVID CARL IMHOFF :
:
Appellant : No. 185 WDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 14, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Criminal Division at No(s): 1497-13,
CP-63-CR-0000281-2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 3, 2020
David Carl Imhoff appeals from the order entered in the Washington
County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the
Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, without a
hearing. After careful review, we quash.
In light of our disposition, a complete recitation of the factual and
procedural history is unnecessary. Relevant for our purposes, on June 12,
2014, after a consolidated jury trial, Imhoff was found guilty, at the above
two dockets, of possession of firearm prohibited, terroristic threats, unlawful
restraint, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, aggravated
assault, and harassment.
On September 5, 2014, Imhoff was sentenced to an aggregate fifteen
to thirty years’ incarceration. Imhoff’s direct appeal, involving both lower-
J-S62014-19
court docket numbers, resulted in no relief. See Commonwealth v. Imhoff,
1597 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super., filed June 30, 2016) (unpublished
memorandum).
Imhoff subsequently filed, pro se, his first PCRA petition. Counsel was
appointed and filed an amended PCRA petition on October 25, 2017. The
amended petition raised numerous assertions of ineffectiveness of trial
counsel and alleged newly discovered evidence in the form of exculpatory
witnesses. The PCRA court dismissed the petition after issuing a notice of its
intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 907. This
timely appeal followed.
Before we reach the issues presented by Imhoff on appeal, we must first
address the fact that he filed a single notice of appeal raising issues that relate
to two docket numbers.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that “where a single order
resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal
must be filed for each case.” Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 971
(Pa. 2018). The Court explained “[t]he Official Note to Rule 341 provides a
bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of
appeal” and “[t]he failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the
appeal.” Id., at 976-977; See also Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.
However, the Court in Walker declined to apply the rule to the case
before it, because to do so would run “contrary to decades of case law from
-2-
J-S62014-19
[the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] and the intermediate appellate courts that,
while disapproving of the practice of failing to file multiple appeals, seldom
quashed appeals as a result.” Id. Thus, the Supreme Court instructed that in
all future cases, a failure to file a notice of appeal for each lower court docket
will result in quashal of the appeal.
On March 29, 2019, this Court issued an order directing Imhoff to show
cause why the appeal should not be quashed pursuant to Walker. Imhoff filed
a counseled response. Imhoff’s response concedes the Walker issue and
requests that he be permitted to file a second notice of appeal to correct the
defect. By order entered April 17, 2019, this Court discharged its rule to show
cause and referred the matter to the merits panel.
We are unable to comply with Imhoff’s request for an exception to
Walker. The Supreme Court did not carve out any exceptions to the holding
in Walker, and we have no authority to do so. The Walker opinion was filed
on June 1, 2018. Here, it is undisputed that Imhoff filed his singular notice of
appeal, inclusive of two docket numbers on February 4, 2019. Imhoff’s appeal
unambiguously arises from an order that resolved issues pertaining to more
than one lower court docket. As such, because he filed this notice after the
decision in Walker, we are constrained to quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed.
-3-
J-S62014-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/3/2020
-4-