Com. v. Biddle, J. ( 2020 )

J-A26034-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN THOMAS BIDDLE, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 73 WDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 14, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-61-CR-0000055-2001,
CP-61-CR-0000335-2014, CP-61-CR-0000531-2013,
CP-61-CR-0000539-2013
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and OLSON, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 20, 2020
Appellant, John Thomas Biddle, Jr., appeals from the order entered on
December 14, 2018, which denied his petition filed under the Post Conviction
Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review of the
certified record, we are constrained to quash this appeal.
In 2001, Appellant pled guilty, at CP-61-CR-0000055-2001 (hereinafter
“Docket 55-2001”), to statutory sexual assault and aggravated indecent
assault.1 As the PCRA court explained:
Subsequently, [the trial court] determined that [Appellant]
was a sexually violent offender as defined in Megan’s Law, 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9792, et seq. . . . Because of the aggravated
indecent assault conviction and sexual[ly] violent offender
designation, [Appellant was] required to register as a sexual
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3122.1 and 3125(a)(8), respectively.
J-A26034-19
offender annually [pursuant to Megan’s Law] for the
remainder of his life upon release from incarceration.
PCRA Court Opinion, 3/8/19, at 1.
On February 24, 2014, at CP-61-CR-0000531-2013 (hereinafter “Docket
531-2013”), Appellant pled guilty to violating registration requirements for
failing to verify his primary residence with the Pennsylvania State Police as
required by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915.1(a)(3). At that time, at CP-61-CR-0000539-
2013 (hereinafter “Docket 539-2013”), Appellant also pled guilty to five
counts of burglary.2 While on bail for the offenses charged at Dockets 531-
2013 and 539-2013 but prior to sentencing, Appellant absconded and was
arrested by warrant in River Rouge, Michigan on May 1, 2014. As a result,
at CP-61-CR-0000335-2014 (hereinafter “Docket 335-2014”), Appellant pled
guilty to default in required appearance pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5124 on
July 31, 2014. On August 8, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant at
Docket 531-2013, Docket 539-2013, and Docket 335-2014 to an aggregate
term of 14½ to 50 years of imprisonment.
On September 11, 2017, Appellant filed a petition pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act3 (PCRA) in which he challenged his convictions and
sentences at Dockets 531-2013, 539-2013, and 335-2014 under
Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017). Appellant alleged that
he was not subject to registration and the other requirements under 18
____________________________________________
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(4).
3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
-2-
J-A26034-19
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4915.1(a)(3) and 5124 since his sexual offenses predated the
enactment of those provisions. Thereafter, Appellant filed two subsequent
amended PCRA petitions. The PCRA court held a hearing on Appellant’s PCRA
claims on May 4, 2018. By opinion and order entered on December 14, 2018,
the PCRA court denied relief, concluding that Appellant’s petitions were
untimely and not subject to an exception under the PCRA. On January 11,
2019, Appellant filed a single notice of appeal to this Court, listing all four
docket numbers as set forth and captioned above.
On January 23, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause why the
appeal should not be quashed pursuant to our Supreme Court’s decision in
Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding that an appeal
must be quashed if an appellant fails to file separate notices of appeal at each
docket number implicated by an order resolving issues at more than one trial
court docket). On January 23, 2019, counsel for Appellant filed a response
stating he was unaware of the Walker decision and acknowledged that he
filed a single notice of appeal. Counsel suggested that “[i]f [this] Court
dismisse[d Appellant’s] appeal, which Walker presumably requires, counsel
will file a [] PCRA petition requesting the PCRA court to reinstate [Appellant’s]
appellate rights due to PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness.” Response to Order to
Show Cause, 1/23/2019, at 1. After receiving the response, this Court
discharged the rule to show cause and referred the issue to this merits panel
by order entered on February 4, 2019.
-3-
J-A26034-19
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341, an appeal may be taken as of right from any
final order. The Official Note to Pa.R.A.P. 341 provides, however, in relevant
part:
Where ... one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than
one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate
notices of appeal must be filed. Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932
A.2d 111, 113 & n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quashing appeal taken by
single notice of appeal from order [involving] two [] judgments of
sentence).
Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note.
In Walker, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that Rule 341
requires that “where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one
docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case.” Walker, 185
A.3d at 971. The Walker 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; see Commonwealth v. Williams, 206
A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quashing pro se appeal that listed four trial court
docket numbers on the notice of appeal); Commonwealth v. Luciani, 201
A.3d 802, 805 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2018) (despite joinder of charges filed at two
separate dockets for the purposes of trial, appellants are still required to file
separate notices of appeal under Walker). Our Supreme Court provided that
its decision applies prospectively to appeals filed after June 1, 2018, the date
Walker was filed.
-4-
J-A26034-19
Here, Appellant filed his notice of appeal on January 11, 2019. Because
the notice of appeal was filed after the Walker decision, we are required to
apply its holding to the case sub judice. In this case, counsel concedes that
this appeal does not comply with Walker since he filed a single notice of
appeal listing all four docket numbers. While the trial court Prothonotary
electronically entered the notice of appeal at each docket number, the paper
record confirms noncompliance since only a single notice of appeal was
included in the record certified to this Court and the single copy of Appellant’s
notice contains only one time-stamp. Since counsel only filed a single notice
of appeal challenging an order resolving issues arising on multiple dockets, we
are constrained to quash this appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341 and the
bright-line rule established in Walker.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/20/2020
-5-
J-A26034-19
-6-