J-S50032-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROBERT MICKENS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 355 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered February 20, 2019

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

No(s): CP-02-CR-0002554-1995, 

CP-02-CR-0015959-1994

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY COLINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2019

Appellant, Robert Mickens, pro se, appeals from the order entered 

February 20, 2019, that dismissed his fourth petition filed under the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)1 without a hearing. We quash this appeal.

This Court has previously summarized the underlying factual and 

procedural history of this action in: Commonwealth v. Mickens, No. 1961 

Pittsburgh 1995, unpublished memorandum at 1-2 (Pa. Super. filed July 22, 

1998); Commonwealth v. Mickens, No. 1777 WDA 2000, unpublished 

memorandum at 1-3 (Pa. Super. filed October 30, 2000); Commonwealth 

v. Mickens, No. 259 WDA 2007, unpublished memorandum at 1-2 (Pa. Super. 

filed December 27, 2007); and Commonwealth v. Mickens, No. 1662 WDA 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541–9546.
J-S50032-19

- 2 -

2016, unpublished memorandum at 1-2 (Pa. Super filed June 23, 2017). We 

therefore need not restate them at length herein.

For the convenience of the reader we briefly note that, on May 11, 1995, 

Appellant was found guilty of murder of the first degree and related offenses 

in connection with the shooting death of St. John Williams. Four days later, 

he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant has filed three prior 

unsuccessful PCRA petitions.

On January 16, 2019, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA petition 

listing both Docket Number CP-02-CR-0015959-1994 and Docket Number CP02-CR-0002554-1995 in the caption. On January 24, 2019, the PCRA court 

entered a notice at both docket numbers of its intent to dismiss all claims 

without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 (“Rule 907 Notice”). On 

February 6, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se response to the Rule 907 Notice at 

both docket numbers. On February 20, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed the 

petition without a hearing. On February 28, 2019, Appellant filed one notice 

of appeal from the two separate dockets.

The Official Note to Rule 341 of the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Appellate Procedure provides in relevant part:

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.
J-S50032-19

- 3 -

Until recently, it was common practice for courts of this 

Commonwealth to allow appeals to proceed, even if they failed to 

comply with Pa.R.A.P. 341.

While our Supreme Court recognized that the practice of 

appealing multiple orders in a single appeal is discouraged 

under Pa.R.A.P. 512 (joint appeals), it previously 

determined that “appellate courts have not generally 

quashed [such] appeals, provided that the issues involved 

are nearly identical, no objection to the appeal has been 

raised, and the period for appeal has expired.” K.H. v. J.R., 

826 A.2d 863, 870 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted).

In the Interest of: P.S., 158 A.3d 643, 648 (Pa. Super. 2017) 

(footnote omitted).

However, on June 1, 2018, our Supreme Court in 

[Commonwealth v.] Walker[, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018),] held 

that the practice violated Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 341, and the failure to file separate notices of appeal 

for separate dockets must result in quashal of the appeal. See 

Walker, 185 A.3d at 977. The Court stated unequivocally: “The 

Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line mandatory 

instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal. . . . 

The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the 

appeal.” Id. at 976-77.

Because the mandate in the Official Note was contrary to “decades 

of case law from this Court and the intermediate appellate courts,” 

the Walker Court announced that its holding would apply 

prospectively only. Id. at 977. Accordingly, Walker applies to 

appeals filed after June 1, 2018, the date Walker was filed. Id.

* * *

2 We recognize the harsh - perhaps draconian - consequence 

of quashing any appeal . . . However, our role as an 

intermediate appellate court is clear. “It is not the 

prerogative of an intermediate appellate court to enunciate 

new precepts of law or to expand existing legal doctrines. 

Such is a province reserved to the Supreme Court.” Moses 

v. T.N.T. Red Star Exp., 725 A.2d 792, 801 (Pa. Super. 

1999). It is well-settled that “the Superior Court is an error 

correcting court and we are obliged to apply the decisional 

law as determined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.” 
J-S50032-19

- 4 -

Commonwealth v. Montini, 712 A.2d 761, 769 (Pa. 

Super. 1998).

In re M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 980-81 & n.2 (Pa. Super. 2019).

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed February 28, 2019 – after the 

deadline of Commonwealth v. Walker (June 1, 2018). Consequently, 

Walker compels quashal of the current appeal.

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/13/2019