J. S35005/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

VICTOR HOLLINGSWORTH, : No. 642 EDA 2015

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, July 18, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0013796-2012

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., AND MUSMANNO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 25, 2016

Victor Hollingsworth appeals from the July 18, 2014 judgment of 

sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following his 

conviction of robbery and criminal conspiracy to commit robbery.1 We quash 

the appeal as untimely.

A jury convicted appellant on May 15, 2014. On July 18, 2014, the 

trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 69 to 180 months’ 

imprisonment. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on July 28, 2014, 

which was denied by the trial court on December 29, 2014. On 

December 31, 2014, appellant filed a motion to reconsider, for which the 

trial court granted a hearing. The trial court held a hearing and denied 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701 and 903, respectively.
J. S35005/16

- 2 -

appellant’s motion on February 5, 2015. Appellant filed a notice of appeal 

on February 6, 2015. On February 12, 2015, the trial court ordered 

appellant to produce a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and appellant complied with the trial court’s 

order on February 27, 2015. On June 25, 2015, the trial court issued an 

opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). This court, on March 30, 2015, 

issued a rule to show cause instructing appellant to show cause why the 

instant appeal should not be quashed as untimely. Appellant responded on 

April 7, 2015. On May 5, 2015, this court issued an order discharging the 

rule to show cause, deferring the issue to this panel.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Was the evidence sufficient as a matter of law 

to convict [appellant] of taking property from 

the complainant either by force or by threat of 

force, or of being a member of a conspiracy to 

take property from the complainant either by 

force or by threat of force?

2. Was the verdict against the weight of the 

evidence?

Appellant’s brief at 5.

Before we can consider appellant’s issues on the merits, we must first 

determine whether we have jurisdiction to do so. While neither party raised 

a jurisdictional issue, we may review jurisdiction sua sponte. 

Commonwealth v. Valentine, 928 A.2d 346, 349 (Pa.Super. 2007), citing 

Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 791 (Pa.Super. 2001).
J. S35005/16

- 3 -

It is well-settled that, upon the filing of a motion for 

reconsideration, a trial court's action in granting a 

rule to show cause and setting a hearing date is 

insufficient to toll the appeal period. Valentine v. 

Wroten, 397 Pa.Super. 526, 580 A.2d 757 (1990). 

Rather, the trial court must expressly grant 

reconsideration within thirty days of entry of its 

order. Pa.R.A.P. 1701. “Failure to ‘expressly’ grant 

reconsideration within the time set by the rules for 

filing an appeal will cause the trial court to lose its 

power to act on the application for reconsideration.” 

Schoff v. Richter, 386 Pa.Super. 289, 562 A.2d 

912, 913 (1989); Cheathem v. Temple University 

Hospital, 743 A.2d 518 (Pa.Super. 1999). 

“Therefore, as the comment to Pa.R.A.P. 1701 

explains, although a party may petition the court for 

reconsideration, the simultaneous filing of a notice of 

appeal is necessary to preserve appellate rights in 

the event that either the trial court fails to grant the 

petition expressly within 30 days, or it denies the 

petition.” [Valley Forge Center v. Rib It/K.P., 

Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245 (Pa.Super. 1997)]. 

Moreover, we have consistently held that an appeal 

from an order denying reconsideration is improper 

and untimely. Valentine, supra.

Commonwealth v. Moir, 766 A.2d 1253, 1254 (Pa.Super. 2000).

Here, in response to this court’s order to show cause, appellant’s 

counsel avers that when denying the post-sentence motions on 

December 29, 2014, the trial court told him that a hearing would be granted 

upon the filing of a “Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of 

Post-Sentence Motions.” The Commonwealth did not respond to our rule to 

show cause, nor did it raise any objection to the timeliness of the instant 

appeal.
J. S35005/16

- 4 -

“[I]n similar situations, we have declined to quash the appeal 

recognizing that the problem arose as a result of the trial court’s 

misstatement of the appeal period, which operated as a breakdown in the 

court’s operation.” Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d at 791, citing Commonwealth v. 

Anwyll, 482 A.2d 656, 657 (Pa.Super. 1984) (“finding that although appeal 

was untimely, where defendant’s failure to appeal on time appeared to be 

the result of a breakdown in operation of trial court, which gave erroneous 

information as to appeal period, appeal would not be quashed as untimely 

but would be regarded as though filed nunc pro tunc and considered on the 

merits”).

The record in the instant case does not indicate that the trial court 

provided erroneous information to appellant’s counsel regarding the appeal 

period, nor does the record indicate that a breakdown in the court’s 

operation took place. As noted by the Moir court, setting a hearing date for 

a motion to reconsider is not sufficient to toll the period to file a notice of 

appeal. We, therefore, quash the instant appeal as untimely.

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/25/2016