Case Title: Edwards. R., Aplt. v. Pa. Board of Pardons and Attorney General of Pa. (Per Curiam Order)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 62 EAP 2008

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2009-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT ROBERT A. EDWARDS, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PARDONS AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 62 EAP 2008 Notice of Appeal ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2009, it is hereby ordered that this appeal from the Commonwealth Court’s September 9, 2008 Order denying Appellant’s Application for Reargument en banc of the Commonwealth Court’s August 12, 2008 Order dismissing appellant’s petition for review is quashed for lack of jurisdiction. The Commonwealth Court’s September 9, 2008 Order denying reargument is not an appealable order. See, e.g., In re Merrick’s Estate, 247 A.2d 786, 787 (Pa. 1968) (quashing appeal from unappealable court order denying reconsideration); Murkey v. Corbin, 533 A.2d 1091 (Pa. -2- Cmwlth. 1987), appeal denied, 554 A.2d 512 (Pa. 1988) (same); Boden v. Tompkins, 452 A.2d 833, 834 (Pa. Super. 1982) (same). Further, the appeal was untimely, as it was not filed within 30 days after the entry of the Commonwealth Court’s August 12 , 2008 Order dismissing appellant’s petition for review. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); Day v. Civil Service Comm’n of Carlisle, 931 A.2d 646, 651-52 (Pa. 2007) (“The timeliness of an appeal involves jurisdiction.”).