J-S30008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BRANDON T. SCHONFELD 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1857 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered June 2, 2022

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

No(s): CP-23-CR-0007738-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 31, 2023

Appellant, Brandon T. Schonfeld, appeals pro se from the trial court’s 

June 2, 2022 order stating that the appearance of his post-conviction counsel, 

Stephen D. Molineux, Esq., is withdrawn. After careful review, we dismiss this 

appeal.

The following procedural history is pertinent to our decision herein. 

Appellant was convicted of various assault and firearm offenses on October 

24, 2014. He was sentenced on December 9, 2014, to a term of 311⁄2 to 63 

years’ incarceration. This Court affirmed on direct appeal, and our Supreme 

Court denied his subsequent petition for permission to appeal. See 

Commonwealth v. Schonfeld, 156 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished 

memorandum), appeal denied, 168 A.3d 1243 (Pa. 2017). 

On June 29, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se petition under the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, and Attorney Molineux 
J-S30008-23

- 2 -

was appointed as counsel. On December 23, 2021, Attorney Molineux filed a 

petition to withdraw and a ‘no-merit letter’ under Commonwealth v. Turner, 

544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. 

Super. 1988) (en banc). On December 28, 2021, the court issued a 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a 

hearing on the basis that it was untimely. Appellant filed a pro se response, 

but on January 31, 2022, the court entered an order denying his petition.

On March 3, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from the 

court’s January 31, 2022 order. This Court docketed that appeal at 632 EDA 

2022. On May 25, 2022, this Court entered a per curiam order pointing out 

that the PCRA court had apparently not ruled on Attorney Molineux’s petition 

to withdraw and, therefore, the status of Appellant’s representation was 

unclear. See Order, 5/25/22, at 1 (unnumbered). Accordingly, we directed 

the PCRA court to decide counsel’s petition to withdraw and notify this Court 

of its ruling within thirty days. Id. On June 2, 2022, the PCRA court entered 

an order stating that the appearance of Attorney Molineux as counsel for 

Appellant was withdrawn. See PCRA Court Order, 6/2/22, at 1 (unnumbered 

single page). The court’s order was served on Attorney Molineux, as well as 

Appellant, and docketed by this Court on August 15, 2022. 

On October 3, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se request for an extension of 

time to file his brief in the appeal docketed at 632 EDA 2022, which this Court 

granted on October 24, 2022. However, Appellant never filed any brief with 
J-S30008-23

- 3 -

this Court and, therefore, we issued an order on January 19, 2023, dismissing 

his appeal at 632 EDA 2022.

Meanwhile, Appellant had filed another pro se notice of appeal on July 

15, 2022, which was docketed at the present number of 1857 EDA 2022. In 

Appellant’s notice of appeal, he states that he is appealing from the PCRA 

court’s June 2, 2022 order withdrawing Attorney Molineux’s appearance as 

counsel for Appellant.

1

 However, in Appellant’s pro se appellate brief, he 

declares that he is challenging the court’s January 31, 2022 order denying his 

PCRA petition, and he presents arguments solely related to that order. See 

Appellant’s Brief at 1, 7-16. 

Based on these circumstances, we are compelled to dismiss this appeal. 

Appellant offers no argument regarding the order from which he filed his 

notice of appeal, i.e., the court’s June 2, 2022 order withdrawing Attorney 

Molineux’s appearance.2 Moreover, to the extent that he clearly intends to 

challenge the court’s January 31, 2022 order denying his PCRA petition, his 

present appeal was not only filed during the pendency of his prior appeal from 

____________________________________________

1 The trial court’s docket entry for the June 2, 2022 order indicates that service 

was made on Appellant on June 15, 2022. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C)(2)(c) 

(stating that docket entries “shall contain” the “date of service of the order”). 

Accordingly, Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on July 15, 2022, was timely.

Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1) (directing that, in computing any period of time under 

these rules involving the date of entry of an order by a court or other 

government unit, 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).

2 Accordingly, we need not determine if that order is even appealable.
J-S30008-23

- 4 -

that same order (docketed at 632 EDA 2022), but it was also filed well after 

the 30-day time-frame for appealing from the January 31, 2022 order had 

passed. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (requiring that an appeal be filed within 30 

days after the entry of the order from which it is taken). Consequently, we 

dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Date: 10/31/2023