J-S64023-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DAVID PATERSON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 540 WDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 27, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-02-CR-0014198-2015

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 3, 2019

David Paterson appeals, pro se, from the order, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County, denying as untimely his petition filed 

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. We quash.

The bulk of the procedural history of this matter is irrelevant to our 

disposition of this appeal. On March 21, 2016, Paterson entered a negotiated 

guilty plea to multiple counts of rape and incest of a minor at two different 

docket numbers. On August 29, 2016, the trial court sentenced Paterson to 

an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years’ incarceration, followed by 10 years of 

probation. Post-sentence motions were denied and Paterson timely appealed. 

He withdrew his appeal on January 12, 2017. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S64023-19

- 2 -

Paterson filed the instant PCRA petition, his second, on February 4, 

2019. The court dismissed the petition as untimely by order dated March 27, 

2019. Paterson filed a single notice of appeal, listing both docket numbers, 

on April 9, 2019. On April 10, 2019, the court ordered Paterson to file a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b). Paterson did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement. 

Paterson raises the following question for our review: “Whether the 

PCRA court erred in denying [Paterson] relief?” Brief of Appellant, at 4. 

Prior to addressing the merits of Paterson’s claim, we must address the 

fact that he filed a single notice of appeal from an order that resolved issues 

relating to two different docket numbers. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 341(a) directs that “an appeal may be taken as of right from any 

final order of a government unit or trial court.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). “The Official 

Note to Rule 341 was amended in 2013 to provide clarification regarding 

proper compliance with Rule 341(a)[.]” Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 

A.3d 969, 976 (Pa. 2018). The Official Note now reads:

Where . . . one or more orders resolves issues arising on more 

than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate 

notices of appeals must be filed. Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 

A.2d 111, 113 & n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quashing appeal taken by 

single notice of appeal from order on remand for consideration 

under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons’ judgments of sentence).

Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.

In Walker, our Supreme Court construed the above-language as 

constituting “a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file 
J-S64023-19

- 3 -

separate notices of appeal.” Walker, 185 A.3d at 976-77. Therefore, “the 

proper practice under Rule 341(a) is to file separate appeals from an order 

that resolves issues arising on more than one docket. The failure to do so 

requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. at 977. However, the 

Court tempered its holding by making it prospective only, recognizing that 

“[t]he amendment to the Official Note to Rule 341 was contrary to decades of 

case law from this Court and the intermediate appellate courts that, while 

disapproving of the practice of failing to file multiple appeals, seldom quashed 

appeals as a result.” Id. Accordingly, the Walker Court directed that “in 

future cases Rule 341 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. (emphasis added).

The Walker opinion was filed on June 1, 2018. Paterson’s pro se notice 

of appeal containing two docket numbers was filed on April 9, 2019. 

Accordingly, we are required to quash this appeal in accordance with Rule 341 

and Walker.

1

Appeal quashed. 

____________________________________________

1 Even if we did not quash Paterson’s appeal pursuant to Walker, we would 

find his appellate claim waived for failure to comply with the PCRA court’s 

order directing him to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth 

v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (to preserve claim for appellate review, 

defendant must comply whenever trial court orders filing of statement of 

errors complained of on appeal).
J-S64023-19

- 4 -

Judge Bowes joins this Memorandum.

Judge Pellegrini concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/3/2019