quashing an appeal where the appellant filed an untimely amendment to list the bill of information actually challenged on appeal when his initial, timely filed notice of appeal listed the wrong bill of information
How later courts described this case
- quashing an appeal where the appellant filed an untimely amendment to list the bill of information actually challenged on appeal when his initial, timely filed notice of appeal listed the wrong bill of information
- quashing appeals as untimely filed because incorrect docket numbers were listed, and appellants failed to file a timely motion amending the notice of appeal
- applying Bass to criminal case but finding that untimely filing was not due to non-negligent conduct
- where the relevant bills of information were not listed on the notice of appeal, appellants could not amend their notices of appeal after the -3- J-A12005-14 time for filing the appeal had expired, and as a result, this Court quashed the appeals
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I don’t agree that Commonwealth v. Brown, 264 Pa.Super. 127 , 399 A.2d 699 (1979), is distinguishable: both there and in this case the error was to omit typing the number of a bill or information on the notice of appeal. In my view the appeals should be quashed on the authority of Bass v. Commonwealth, 485 Pa. 256 , 401 A.2d 1133 (1979), which I regard as sub silentio overruling Brown . In Bass the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule that “[t]he negligence of an appellant, or an appellant’s counsel, or an agent of appellant’s counsel, has not been considered a sufficient excuse for the failure to file a timely appeal.” Id., 485 Pa. at 259 , 401 A.2d at 1135 . Here, both appellants were negligent.