Com. v. Perkins, L. ( 2020 )

J-S13012-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LAHME PERKINS
Appellant No. 785 MDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered April 11, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No: CP-22-CR-0001266-2008,
CP-22-CR-0001394-2008
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 26, 2020
Appellant, Lahme Perkins, appeals pro se from the April 11, 2019 order
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County following dismissal
of his petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief
Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Following review, we remand.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court on May 5, 2019.
However, he filed a single notice of appeal listing two docket numbers. In
light of our Supreme Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d
969 (Pa. 2018), we issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be
quashed as a single notice of appeal resolving issues on more than one docket.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13012-20
The rule required a response within ten days. Appellant did not file a response
within that timeframe. By order entered on June 17, 2019, the rule was
discharged and the matter was referred to this merits panel.1
This Court subsequently issued its decision in Commonwealth v.
Larkin, No. 2761 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. filed July 9, 2020) (en banc),
addressing Walker issues. In Larkin, the trial court’s order informed Larkin
that he had 30 days from the date of the order “to file an appeal.” Id. at ___
(emphasis in original). We determined quashal was not necessary in light of
a breakdown in the court system based on the language in the trial court’s
order referring to “an appeal.”
Similarly, the PCRA court’s order in the instant case advised Appellant
of his right “to file an appeal” within 30 days of the trial court’s order. Just
as in Larkin, this constitutes a breakdown in the court system. Therefore,
quashal is not required.
We next consider whether Appellant has preserved any issues for our
consideration. By order entered on May 15, 2019, the PCRA court directed
Appellant to file a concise statement of errors in accordance with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). A review of the docket suggests that Appellant failed to comply.
Moreover, the order directed that a copy of the statement be served on the
PCRA judge. Here, the judge indicated in his Rule 1925(a) opinion that
____________________________________________
1 Although Appellant did file a response, it was not received prior to the
issuance of the order discharging the rule.
-2-
J-S13012-20
Appellant did not file the required statement. Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 6/21/19,
at 1. Further, although Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(11) and (d) require that a copy of
the Rule 1925(b) statement be appended to an appellant’s brief, Appellant did
not include or even reference the statement in his table of contents.
On initial review, we determined Appellant waived all issues for review
for failure to file a Rule 1925(a) statement. See Commonwealth v. Hill, 16
A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011); Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa.
1998). However, Appellant filed a timely Application for Reconsideration in
which he represented that he served four copies of his Rule 1925(b) statement
on the Dauphin County Clerk of Courts on May 27, 2019. With his application,
Appellant provided a copy of a Rule 1925(b) statement dated May 26, 2019
(Appendix A), along with a cash slip dated May 27, 2019 (Appendix B),
reflecting his request for postage due for an unidentified mailing to the
Dauphin County Clerk of Courts. By order entered September 22, 2020, we
granted reconsideration.
In light of the representations made in Appellant’s request for
reconsideration and the exhibits attached thereto, we are compelled to
remand to the PCRA court with instruction to ascertain whether Appellant filed
a Rule 1925(b) statement and served a copy on the judge within 21 days of
the court’s May 15, 2019 order. In the event the court determines Appellant
complied with its May 15, 2019 concise statement order, the court shall issue
a Rule 1925(a) opinion within thirty (30) days of the transmittal of the record
-3-
J-S13012-20
to the PCRA court, addressing the merits of Appellant’s issues. In the event
the court determines Appellant did not comply with the May 15, 2019 concise
statement order, the court shall advise this Court of that fact within fourteen
(14) days of the return of the record and shall indicate the nature and scope
of the investigation undertaken in concluding Appellant did not comply with
the May 15, 2019 order.
Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained.
-4-