Com. v. Williams, A.

J-S59027-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
AUDRETTE WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 7 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 29, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-09-CR-0007268-2017,
CP-09-CR-2483-2017
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2019
Appellant appeals from the judgment of sentence following a bench trial
and convictions for possession with intent to deliver, possession of a firearm
prohibited, and firearm not to be carried without a license. Appellant’s counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
its Pennsylvania counterpart, Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349(Pa. 2009). In light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in
Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), we quash. Counsel’s
petition to withdraw is denied without prejudice.
The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are well known to the
parties, and we need not restate them here. On December 19, 2018,
Appellant filed a timely, single notice of appeal listing both of the above-
captioned docket numbers, at docket no. 2483-2017. This Court subsequently
J-S59027-19
issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed. Counsel
filed a response acknowledging only a single notice of appeal was filed, and
this Court deferred the resolution of the issue to this panel.
In Walker, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held 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 Court
explained that “[t]he Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line
mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” Id.
at 976-77. Further, the Court announced, “in future cases Rule 341(a) 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.
at 977 (footnote omitted).
Instantly, Appellant filed a single notice of appeal listing both docket
numbers from the judgment of sentence. Because Appellant filed the notice
of appeal after our Supreme Court’s decision in Walker, we are constrained
to quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed. Counsel’s petition to withdraw denied without
prejudice.
-2-
J-S59027-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/14/19
-3-