Com. v. Williams, A. ( 2020 )

J-S01009-20
J-S01010-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ATWOOD WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 224 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 11, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0824001-1993,
CP-51-CR-0824211-1993
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ATWOOD WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 225 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 11, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0824001-1993,
CP-51-CR-0824211-1993
BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 12, 2020
Atwood Williams appeals from the order that dismissed his petition filed
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) in both of the above-
captioned cases. The notice of appeal for each case includes both docket
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S01009-20
J-S01010-19
numbers, which a three-judge panel of this Court had determined was a
violation of our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185
A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding that appellants are required to file separate
notices of appeal at each docket number implicated by an order resolving
issues that involve more than one trial court docket). See Commonwealth
v. Creese, 216 A.3d 1142, 1143 (Pa.Super. 2019). However, on July 9, 2020,
this Court sitting en banc held that, where an appellant files notices of appeal
separately at each implicated docket number, the mandates of Walker have
been satisfied regardless of the inclusion of additional docket numbers on each
notice. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, ___ A.3d ___, 2020 PA Super 164(Pa.Super. July 9, 2020) (en banc).
The record before us indicates that the instant appeals comply with
Walker as interpreted by Johnson. Appellant did in fact separately file two
notices of appeal, one at each case’s docket. See Appellant’s Response to
Rule to Show Cause, 9/16/19, at ¶ 4 (explaining that the notice of appeal was
separately docketed for each case number and that the notices bear different
time stamps). Accordingly, the number of docket numbers listed on the
notices of appeal provide no basis to quash these appeals, which we instead
hereby consolidate pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513.
The PCRA court in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion relied upon the alleged
Walker violation and offered no analysis of the issue Appellant identified in
his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See PCRA Court Opinion, 4/17/19, at 3.
-2-
J-S01009-20
J-S01010-19
Since we have determined that we have jurisdiction to reach the merits of this
appeal, we remand to the PCRA court for the preparation of a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opinion explaining the reasons for its ruling within sixty days of the
date of this order. Thereafter, our Prothonotary shall issue a new briefing
schedule to allow the parties to address the PCRA court’s opinion.
Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/12/2020
-3-