Com. v. Jackson, E. ( 2020 )

J-S16014-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
EDMOND JACKSON :
:
Appellant : No. 2167 EDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 8, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0305882-2005,
CP-51-CR-0603441-2005
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 22, 2020
Edmond Jackson (“Appellant”) appeals from the Order entered June 8,
2018, denying his second Petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief
Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Based on Commonwealth v.
Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), we must quash this appeal.
After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of two counts of
attempted murder, seven counts of aggravated assault, conspiracy, and
violation of the Uniform Firearms Act in connection with a shooting incident
that occurred in October 2004. On July 21, 2006, the court sentenced him to
an aggregate term of 13½ to 27 years’ incarceration. This Court affirmed his
Judgment of Sentence and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur.
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 955 A.2d 441 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal
denied, 967 A.2d 958 (Pa. 2009).
J-S16014-20
Appellant filed his first PCRA Petition in 2010, asserting ineffective
assistance of counsel claims, challenging the legality of his sentence, and
alleging he was entitled to a new trial based on after-discovered evidence,
i.e., the arrest of a witness in his case, Detective Ronald Dove, on charges of
misconduct in an unrelated case. The PCRA court dismissed the petition
without a hearing, and Appellant appealed to this Court. In an unpublished
Memorandum, this Court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part,
concluding that Appellant was entitled to a hearing on the after-discovered
evidence claim. Commonwealth v. Jackson, No. 2527 EDA 2014 at 28 (Pa.
Super. filed Sept. 14, 2015). The Commonwealth appealed to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In a per curiam Order, the Supreme Court
reversed and reinstated the dismissal of the Petition after concluding Appellant
was not entitled to a hearing because an arrest is not “producible and
admissible” evidence. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 158 A.3d 64 (Pa. 2016)
(per curiam) (citing Commonwealth v. Taylor, 381 A.2d 418, 419 (Pa.
1977) (“[t]he veracity of a witness may not be impeached by evidence of prior
arrests which have not led to convictions”).
On June 20, 2017, Appellant filed the instant second Petition, again
asserting a claim of after-discovered evidence, i.e., an April 2017 newspaper
article reporting Detective Dove’s guilty plea in the unrelated case. The PCRA
court dismissed the Petition on June 8, 2018.
-2-
J-S16014-20
On June 28, 2018, Appellant appealed pro se, filing a single Notice of
Appeal listing two criminal docket numbers.1 However, on June 1, 2018, our
Supreme Court had disapproved of the common practice of filing a single
notice of appeal from an order or judgment involving more than one docket
number. See generally Walker, supra. The Court observed that “the
proper practice under [Pa.R.A.P.] 341(a) is to file separate appeals from an
order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket.” Walker, 185
A.3d at 977. Accordingly, the Court determined, “[t]he failure to do so
requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id.
In this case, Appellant filed a single Notice of Appeal from the Order
entered at two separate docket numbers. Appellant’s appeal postdates the
Walker decision. Accordingly, we are constrained to quash this appeal.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/22/2020
____________________________________________
1For unknown reasons, this Court did not receive the trial court record until
September 3, 2019.
-3-