Com. v. Khillawan, A.

J-S52015-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ADRIAN KHILLAWAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2601 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 25, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-52-CR-0000007-2018,
CP-52-CR-0000376-2017
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: MARCH 19, 2021
Appellant, Adrian Khillawan, filed a single notice of appeal from his June
25, 2019 judgment of sentence involving two separate lower court docket
numbers. This Court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not
be quashed pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa.
2018), which adopted a prospective bright-line rule requiring separate notices
of appeal to be filed from a single order resolving issues arising on more than
one lower court docket. We are constrained to quash the appeal.
The two matters underlying this appeal stem from two separate
incidents, one on June 22, 2017 and a second one on November 2, 2017. Both
incidents involved encounters between Appellant and his neighbors. Following
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S52015-20
the incident on June 22, Appellant was charged with, inter alia, two counts
each of terroristic threats, disorderly conduct and harassment at docket
number CR-376-2017. Following the second incident on November 2,
Appellant was charged with, inter alia, tampering with physical evidence and
false reports to law enforcement at docket number CR-007-2018.
The two matters were tried together at a non-jury trial on May 21, 2019.
Appellant was found guilty of two counts each of terroristic threats, disorderly
conduct and harassment at docket number CR-376-2017. He was also found
guilty of tampering with physical evidence and false reports to law
enforcement at docket number CR-007-2018. On June 25, 2019, following a
hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 34-80
months’ imprisonment for the counts at both docket numbers. The June 25,
2019 order recording Appellant’s judgment of sentence listed both the CR-
376-2017 and the CR-007-2018 docket numbers in the caption.
Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. Appellant did, however,
file a timely, single notice of appeal on July 22, 2019. That notice of appeal
listed both docket number CR-376-2017 and docket number CR-007-2018 in
the caption. After filing the notice of appeal, Appellant’s counsel filed an
application to withdraw from representation and he was ultimately permitted
to withdraw. New counsel was appointed.
Appointed counsel eventually filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of
errors complained of on appeal. In response, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P.
-2-
J-S52015-20
1925(a) opinion. In the opinion, the trial court thoroughly addressed each one
of the issues Appellant raised in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and
concluded that each issue lacked merit.
This Court, meanwhile, issued a rule to show cause why the appeal
should not be quashed pursuant to Walker. In response, Appellant’s counsel
acknowledged that the single notice of appeal filed by previous counsel had
listed both lower court docket numbers in the caption. Counsel essentially
argued, however, that this Court should refuse to quash the appeal in the
interests of judicial economy and justice. This Court subsequently issued an
order discharging the rule-to-show-cause order and referring the matter to
this panel.
Appellant briefly revisits the Walker issue in his appellate brief. He once
again argues that notwithstanding the fact that the notice of appeal was
defective under Walker, this Court should not quash his appeal in the
interests of judicial economy and justice. See Appellant’s Brief at 30. Given
the plain language of Walker, we cannot agree.
In Walker, our Supreme Court held that Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) and its Official
Note require that a defendant file a separate notice of appeal for each docket
number when the defendant appeals a single order resolving issues arising on
more than one lower court docket. See Walker, 185 A.3d at 977. The Court
then held that, in future cases, “failure to do so will result in quashal of the
appeal.” Id.
-3-
J-S52015-20
Appellant admittedly failed to comply with Walker. Instead, he filed a
single notice of appeal that contained both docket number CR-376-2017 and
docket number CR-007-2018 in the caption. Walker made clear that when a
defendant fails to file separate notices of appeal in these circumstances, the
appeal must be quashed. See id. Walker does not, contrary to what Appellant
suggests, make any kind of exception to this mandate based on the general
interests of judicial economy and justice.
This Court, however, has declined to quash a single notice of appeal
listing multiple docket numbers when there has been a breakdown in court
operations. To that end, we declined to quash the appeal in Commonwealth
v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157 (Pa. Super. 2019). We reasoned that although
the pro se appellant had filed a single notice of appeal listing two docket
numbers, quashal was not proper because the lower court had advised the
appellant that he could pursue appellate review by filing a single notice of
appeal. See id. at 159. Likewise, in Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d
350, 354 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc), this Court did not quash the appellant’s
pro se notice of appeal despite its noncompliance with Walker when the
appellant had been advised by the lower court that he had 30 days to file “an
appeal.”
Appellant does not argue that he or his attorney who filed the notice of
appeal on his behalf were similarly misled or misinformed about Appellant’s
appellate rights, and the record does not disclose any such breakdown in court
-4-
J-S52015-20
operations. At sentencing, the trial court informed Appellant of his appellate
rights. Unlike in Stansbury or Larkin, the trial court did not indicate that only
a single notice of appeal had to be filed in Appellant’s case in order to preserve
his appellate rights. Rather, the trial court specifically advised Appellant that
he had the right “to appeal” to this Court. N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 6/25/19,
at 25.
Appellant did so, but only filed a single notice of appeal listing both
docket numbers implicated in the judgment of sentence order Appellant
sought to appeal. Walker required him to file a separate notice of appeal at
each docket number, and under the clear dictates of Walker, Appellant’s
failure to do so compels us to quash his appeal. See Walker 185 A.3d at 977.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/19/21
-5-