Com. v. Derose, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 31, 2023
• Docket: 992 MDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S06014-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAMES ANTHONY DEROSE : : Appellant : No. 992 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at Nos. CP-22-CR-0004041-2021, CP-22-CR-0004043-2021, CP-22-CR-0004756-2021

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED: MARCH 31, 2023

Appellant, James Anthony Derose, appeals from the judgments of

sentence entered on three dockets in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin

County on May 11, 2022. Following issuance of the May 11 sentencing order,

Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied in

three separate orders (one for each docket) on June 28, 2022. Neither the

sentencing order nor the orders denying reconsideration included any

instructions for taking an appeal from the trial court’s orders. On July 12,

2022, Appellant filed a single notice of appeal.

In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme

Court held that appellants are required to file separate notices of appeal when,

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S06014-23

as here, a single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court

docket.1 Subsequently, in Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa.

2021), the Court revisited the issue in the context of Pa.R.A.P. 902 and held:

Now that Rule 902 is squarely before us, we take it on its terms, notwithstanding any effect its application here may have on the bright-line rule of Walker. In doing so, we conclude the relationship between Rules 341(a) and 902 is clear. Rule 341 requires that when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed from that order at each docket; but, where a timely appeal is erroneously filed at only one docket, Rule 902 permits the appellate court, in its discretion, to allow correction of the error, where appropriate.

Id. at 477 (footnote omitted).

Consistent with Young, and this Court’s ruling on remand, see

Commonwealth v. Young, 280 A.3d 1049 (Pa. Super. 2022), we remand

this case to allow Appellant, within ten days, to file separate notices of appeal

at each of the three docket numbers at issue in this appeal. Failure to do so

will result in quashal of the appeal. Upon the trial court’s certifications that

the notices have been duly filed as part of supplemental records, we shall

proceed to address the substance of the appeals.

Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.

1Walker applies to all case filed after June 1, 2018. See Walker, 185 A.3d at 977.

-2-