The opinion
J-S04018-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
FRANKIE LAMAR BROWN :
:
Appellant : No. 1158 MDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 22, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0002168-2012,
CP-36-CR-0004421-2011, CP-36-CR-0004462-2012
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 23, 2019
Frankie Lamar Brown appeals, pro se, from the order entered June 22,
2018, in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his serial
petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”).1 Brown seeks relief from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate
term of 6½ to 15 years’ imprisonment, imposed on May 13, 2013, following
his negotiated guilty plea to person not to possess firearms, simple assault,
aggravated assault, conspiracy to riot, and riot, on three separate dockets.
On appeal, he asserts the PCRA court erred in dismissing his PCRA petition as
____________________________________________
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S04018-19
untimely. For the reasons below, we are constrained to quash this appeal and
deny Brown’s motion to correct docketing.
The parties are well acquainted with the facts and procedural history
underlying this appeal and we need not recite them herein. In summary, on
May 13, 2013, Brown entered a negotiated guilty plea to the aforementioned
charges. The trial court immediately sentenced him in accordance with the
terms of the plea deal. Brown did not file a direct appeal.
Brown filed a pro se PCRA petition on June 17, 2014. The PCRA court
subsequently appointed counsel, who petitioned to withdraw. The PCRA court
granted counsel’s request to withdraw and dismissed the PCRA petition on
June 30, 2017. Brown did not file an appeal.
On May 24, 2018, Brown filed a second, pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA
court did not issue notice of its intent to dismiss the petition pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1). On June 22, 2018, the PCRA
court dismissed the petition as untimely. This timely appeal listing all three
lower court docket numbers followed.2
On appeal, Brown contends the PCRA court erred in dismissing his
petition as untimely and attempts to invoke the limited mental health
exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirement as enunciated by this Court in
____________________________________________
2In response to the PCRA court’s order, Brown filed a timely concise statement
of errors complained of on appeal. On August 29, 2018, the court filed an
opinion.
-2-
J-S04018-19
Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal
denied, 20 A.3d 1210 (Pa. 2011). “In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we
examine whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record
and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277, 1283–
1284 (Pa. 2016) (internal punctuation and citation omitted).
However, before we may consider the timeliness of the PCRA petition,
we must first determine whether Brown properly filed the notice of appeal.3
As noted supra, Brown’s single notice of appeal listed all three docket
numbers. See Notice of Appeal, 7/10/2018. The official note to Pennsylvania
Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 states that separate notices of appeal must
be filed when “one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one
docket or relating to more than one judgment.”4 Despite this, the courts of
this Commonwealth, until recently, have allowed appeals to proceed even if
the appellant listed multiple dockets on one notice of appeal. See In Interest
of P.S., 158 A.3d 643 (Pa. Super. 2017), appeal denied, 174 A.3d 1029 (Pa.
2017).
____________________________________________
3 On July 31, 2018, this Court issued Brown a rule to show cause why the
appeal should not be quashed in light of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185
A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). In response, Brown filed a motion to correct docketing,
and we discharged the rule, so the merits panel could decide the issue.
4 Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.
-3-
J-S04018-19
However, on June 1, 2018, in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d
969 (Pa. 2018), 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.” Id. at 971. The Court explained “[t]he
Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line mandatory instruction to
practitioners to file separate notices of appeal” and “[t]he failure to do so
requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. at 976-977.
Recognizing, however, that “decades” of prior case law, while disapproving of
the practice, seldom resulted in quashal of the appeal, the Walker Court
declined to quash the appeal before it. Nevertheless, the Court held:
While we do not quash the present appeal in this instance, 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).
In the case before us, Brown filed a single notice of appeal, listing all
three trial court docket numbers at issue, on July 10, 2018. Because he filed
this notice after the decision in Walker, Brown was required to file separate
notices of appeal for each number. Consequently, pursuant to the mandate
in Walker, supra, we are constrained to quash this appeal.5
____________________________________________
5We note that, in response to the rule to show cause, Brown filed a motion to
correct docketing, asserting that we should not quash the present appeal
because he is appealing pro se and is ignorant of the law and requesting
-4-
J-S04018-19
Appeal quashed. Motion to correct docketing denied. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/23/2019
____________________________________________
permission to file three late notices of appeal. However, as this Court
explained in Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996):
While this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a
pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any
particular advantage because [he] lacks legal training. As our
Supreme Court has explained, “any layperson choosing to
represent [himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some
reasonable extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and
legal training will prove [his] undoing.”
Id. at 1013 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the mandate in Walker binds us.
-5-