J-S40018-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

STEFON JOHNSON, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1758 WDA 2018

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 9, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-25-CR-0001038-2014, 

CP-25-CR-0002133-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED OCTOBER 31, 2019

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that this appeal must 

be quashed pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 

2018). The trial court entered its “Final Order” on November 9, 2018. This 

single order included a caption referencing two docket numbers, CP-25-CR0002133-2014 (2133) and CP-25-CR-0001038-2014 (1038). As the majority 

notes, the trial court only filed its Final Order at docket number 1038. The 

trial court docket as to docket number 2133 only has entries that refer to the 

orders entered at docket number 1038.

In my view, Walker does not apply under the present facts. First, the 

trial court’s failure to file its Final Order at docket number 2133 means that 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S40018-19

- 2 -

there is no appealable order in that case from which Johnson could seek 

review. Insofar as Johnson filed a notice of appeal as to that case, the appeal 

should be quashed and the case remanded for the trial court to enter a Final 

Order in the appropriate docket. Johnson’s 30-day window in which to file a 

notice of appeal would not begin to run until the order is duly entered. See

Pa.R.A.P. 301(a) (“[N]o order of a court shall be appealable until it has been 

entered upon the appropriate docket in the lower court.”) (Emphasis added).

Second, the trial court’s inclusion of two docket numbers in one order 

also calls into question whether any appealable order was entered at all.

Pa.R.A.P. 301(b) makes an order appealable only if it is “set forth on a 

separate document.” This case involves a single Final Order with two docket 

numbers, so even though the order was entered at docket number 1038, the 

violation of the separate document rule makes the entire order unappealable, 

and on that basis, the time to file a notice of appeal as to both of the above 

docket numbers has not yet begun to run.

Third, and finally, I would find Walker inapplicable as to docket 

numbers 2133 and 1038 because any defect in Johnson’s notice of appeal 

resulted from a breakdown in court operations. The trial court did not just file

the Final Order at only one docket number; the trial court also misadvised 

Johnson that a single order resolved both cases, and that a single notice of 

appeal would be necessary to invoke appellate jurisdiction.
J-S40018-19

- 3 -

The last line of the Final Order reads, “As this represents the Final Order 

with respect to this matter, Petitioner is hereby notified that he has thirty (30) 

days from the date of this Order to file his Notice of Appeal.” It is difficult to 

construe the above line as anything other than an instruction that the single 

“Order” resolved a single “matter” which could be reviewed upon the timely 

filing of a single “Notice.”

As we held in Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 303 EDA 2019, at *3

(Pa. Super. September 5, 2019), a party should not be held responsible for a 

procedural error that flows from a court’s misadvice. See also 

Commonwealth v. Villanueva, 1863 MDA 2018, at *2 (Pa. Super. October

8, 2019) (unpublished memorandum) (“The trial court’s inaccurate statement 

that Appellant could file a single appeal from the sentences at three different 

dockets constitutes a breakdown of court operations such that the resultant 

defect in the notices of appeal may be overlooked.”); Commonwealth v.

Hackley, 1769 MDA 2018, at *2 (Pa. Super. September. 23, 2019)

(unpublished memorandum) (finding Walker inapplicable because “the trial 

court essentially told [the defendant] that there was one order, and that he 

was entitled to only one appeal.”).

Thus, under the present facts, Walker should not apply.