J-S23024-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

FRANK HYMAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2185 EDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 26, 2017

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0002579-2007

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED JUNE 26, 2018

Appellant Frank Hyman appeals from the order dismissing his timely first 

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 

9541-9546. Because the PCRA court did not enter a final order dismissing the 

PCRA claims, we quash.

On April 20, 2011, following a jury trial, Appellant was sentenced to 

twenty to forty years’ incarceration for attempted murder and aggravated 

assault.1 Appellant filed a direct appeal, and on October 25, 2013, this Court 

affirmed the trial court’s judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Hyman, 

1422 EDA 2011 (Pa. Super. filed Oct. 25, 2013) (unpublished mem.). On 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a) and 2702(a)(1).
J-S23024-18

- 2 -

March 18, 2014, our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance 

of appeal. Commonwealth v. Hyman, 87 A.3d 317 (Pa. 2014).

On August 5, 2014, the PCRA court docketed Appellant’s timely first pro 

se PCRA petition raising several claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness and 

challenging discretionary aspects of his sentence. Thereafter, the court 

appointed PCRA counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition on May 3, 2016. 

The matter was not relisted until February 27, 2017.

2

 A docket entry for that 

date indicated that a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss was “to be 

sent[,]” and the matter was relisted for formal dismissal.3 (See PCRA Court 

Docket, No. CP-51-CR-0002579-2007, at 19). On June 26, 2017, the PCRA 

court purported to formally dismiss Appellant’s PCRA petition.4

On July 7, 2017, Appellant filed a notice of appeal and subsequently 

complied with the PCRA court’s order to file a concise statement pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Therein, he claimed that the PCRA court erred in 

dismissing Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and in 

denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. On September 7, 2017, the 

____________________________________________

2 The PCRA court issued an order to comply on December 23, 2016, and the 

Commonwealth subsequently filed its response to Appellant’s petition on 

February 10, 2017.

3 We note that the record does not contain a copy of the Rule 907 notice.

4 The docket contained two entries for June 26, 2017: (1) “PCRA - Dismissal 

Notice Under Rule 907 Filed[;]” and (2) Order Dismissing PCRA Petition. Both 

entries also state that the matter was “formally dismissed.” See Docket, CP51-CR-0002579-2007, at 19-20.
J-S23024-18

- 3 -

PCRA court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion that thoroughly addressed the 

merits of those claims.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the court erred in not granting relief on the PCRA 

petition alleging [t]rial [c]ounsel and/or [a]ppellate [c]ounsel 

was ineffective.

2. Whether the [c]ourt erred in denying [Appellant’s] PCRA 

petition without an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised in 

the amended PCRA petition regarding [t]rial [c]ounsel’s 

ineffectiveness.

Appellant’s Brief at 8. 

As a prefatory matter, we must address whether this appeal is properly 

before us. We may raise issues concerning our jurisdiction sua sponte. 

Commonwealth v. Baio, 898 A.2d 1095, 1098 (Pa. Super. 2006).

In general, appeals are properly taken from final orders. 

Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 64 A.3d 602, 608 (Pa. 2013). “An order 

granting, denying, dismissing, or otherwise finally disposing of a petition for 

post-conviction collateral relief shall constitute a final order for purposes of 

appeal.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 910. When a PCRA petition is dismissed without a 

hearing, the court must promptly “issue an order to that effect and shall advise 

the defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the right to appeal 

from the final order disposing of the petition and of the time limits within which 

the appeal must be filed.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(4). 

The order must also be filed and served in accordance with Pennsylvania 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 114. Id. Rule 114 provides, in part:
J-S23024-18

- 4 -

(1) All orders and court notices promptly shall be transmitted to 

the clerk of courts’ office for filing. Upon receipt in the clerk of 

courts' office, the order or court notice promptly shall be time 

stamped with the date of receipt.

(2) All orders and court notices promptly shall be placed in the 

criminal case file.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 114.

Finally, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 108 states, in relevant 

part, “[I]n computing any period of time under these rules involving the date 

of entry of an order . . . the day of entry shall be the day the clerk of the court 

or the office of the government unit mails or delivers copies of the order to 

the parties[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1); see also Pa.R.A.P. 108(d)(1).

Our review of the certified record reveals that no formal order was

entered into the record.

5

 While it appears that the PCRA court intended to 

dismiss Appellant’s petition on June 26, 2017, and may have done so orally, 

the court did not enter a final order as required by Rules 907 and 114.

____________________________________________

5 The PCRA court, Appellant, and the Commonwealth refer to June 26, 2017 

as the date on which Appellant’s PCRA was dismissed. Given that the parties 

agree that the petition was dismissed on June 26, 2017, and Appellant filed a 

notice of appeal within thirty days of the purported dismissal we attempted to 

resolve the procedural error by conducting an informal inquiry with the PCRA 

court. However, we were informed that the PCRA court did not file an order 

dismissing the petition.
J-S23024-18

- 5 -

Accordingly, we conclude that the PCRA court has yet to enter a final 

order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition. Therefore, we must quash this 

appeal.6

Appeal quashed. 

Judge Shogan joins in this memorandum.

P.J.E. Stevens concurs in the result. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/26/18

 

____________________________________________

6 We note that Appellant may file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the 

date on which the PCRA court enters its final order disposing of Appellant’s 

PCRA petition.