Com. v. Afriyie, A.

J-S36001-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
AKWASI AFRIYIE :
:
Appellant : No. 2099 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-36-CR-0001678-2018,
CP-36-CR-0001799-2018, CP-36-CR-0001801-2018,
CP-36-CR-0002604-2018
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 08, 2019
Appellant, Akwasi Afriyie, appeals pro se from the post-conviction
court's December 11, 2018 Order that denied and dismissed his PCRA petition
without a hearing. After careful review, we are constrained to quash this
appeal.
On June 28, 2018, Afriyie pled guilty to charges on the cases docketed
to 1801-2018, 1799-2018, 1678-2018, and 2604-2018, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division. In 1801-2018, he pled
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S36001-19
guilty to burglary1 and theft by unlawful taking2; in 1678-2018, to two counts
each of terroristic threats,3 disorderly conduct4 and public drunkenness5; and
in 2604-2018, to terroristic threats,6 harassment,7 and stowaways
prohibited.8 In the last case, 1799-2018, he pled guilty to criminal trespass.9
In accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, he was sentenced to
an aggregate sentence of time served to twenty-three (23) months of
incarceration and a consecutive sentence of probation for three (3) years.
According to the PCRA Court, “[d]uring the proceedings, [Afriyie] confirmed
on the record that he committed the offenses and that he was pleading guilty
because he committed the offenses, and he also acknowledged that he was
pleading guilty to the facts underlying each charge as read into the record by
the Commonwealth.” Rule 907 Notice, 11-14-18, at 2. At the time of the guilty
plea and sentencing, he was represented by a public defender. No direct
appeal was filed.
In August 2018, Afriyie filed a pro se Motion for Relief under the Post-
Conviction Relief Act. The PCRA Court appointed counsel for Afriyie, however,
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.SA. § 3502(a)(4).
2 18 Pa.C.SA. § 3921(a).
3 18 Pa.C.SA. § 2706(a)(1).
4 18 Pa.C.SA. § 5503(a)(2).
5 18 Pa.C.SA. § 5505.
6 18 Pa.C.SA. § 2706(a)(1).
7 18 Pa.C.SA. § 2709(a)(4).
8 18 Pa.C.SA. § 3504(b)(1).
9 18 Pa.C.SA. § 3503(a)(11).
-2-
J-S36001-19
counsel filed a Finley/Turner letter and motion to withdraw. The motion to
withdraw was granted by the PCRA Court on November 14, 2018.
On December 26, 2018, Afriyie filed an appeal with the Superior Court
of Pennsylvania.
Before we can delve into the merits of Afriyie’s appeal, we must address
the fact that he filed a single notice of appeal for an order that resolved issues
relating to four different docket numbers. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 341(a) directs that “an appeal may be taken as of right from any
final order of a government unit or trial court.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). “The Official
Note to Rule 341 was amended in 2013 to provide clarification regarding
proper compliance with Rule 341(a)....” Commonwealth v. Walker, 185
A.3d 969, 976 (Pa. 2018). The Official Note now reads:
Where ... one or more orders resolves issues arising on
more than one docket or relating to more than one
judgment, separate notices of appeals 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 on remand for consideration under
Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons' judgments of sentence).
Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.
In Walker, our Supreme Court construed the above-language as
constituting “a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file
separate notices of appeal.” Walker, 185 A.3d at 976-77. Therefore,
the Walker Court held that “the proper practice under Rule 341(a) is to file
separate appeals from an order that resolves issues arising on more than one
-3-
J-S36001-19
docket. The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the
appeal.” Id. at 977. However, the Court tempered its holding by making it
prospective only, recognizing that “[t]he amendment to the Official Note to
Rule 341 was contrary to decades of case law from this 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. Accordingly,
the Walker Court directed that “in future cases Rule 341 will, in accordance
with its Official Note, require that when a single order resolves issues arising
on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed.
The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Id. (emphasis added).
See also, Commonwealth v. Williams, 206 A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(applying Walker to quash appeal filed June 5, 2018).
The Walker opinion was filed on June 1, 2018. Here, Appellant's pro
se notice of appeal containing multiple docket numbers was filed on December
26, 2018. In light of this record, we are compelled to conclude that Appellant's
non-compliant notice of appeal was filed after the Walker decision. Therefore,
we must quash this appeal in accordance with Rule 341 and Walker.
Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Shogan joins the memorandum.
Judge Pellegrini files a dissenting memorandum.
-4-
J-S36001-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/08/2019
-5-