J-S74028-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JESUS M. FONSECA 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1818 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 30, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-48-CR-0002250-2018, 

CP-48-CR-0002252-2018, CP-48-CR-0002268-2018, 

CP-48-CR-0002269-2018, CP-48-CR-0002274-2018, 

CP-48-CR-0002275-2018, CP-48-CR-0002308-2018, 

CP-48-CR-0002309-2018

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MURRAY, J.: Filed: February 7, 2020

Jesus M. Fonseca (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after he pled guilty to seven counts of retail theft and one count of 

theft by deception.

1

 We are constrained to quash the appeal.

On September 27, 2018, Fonseca pled guilty, at eight separate trial 

court dockets, to the above charges, which arose out of his theft of goods 

from various retail stores. On November 30, 2018, the trial court imposed an 

aggregate sentence of 3 to 10 years in prison on the eight dockets.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3929(a)(1), 3922(a)(1).
J-S74028-19

- 2 -

Following a procedural history that is not relevant to this appeal, 

Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence on March 

29, 2019, which the trial court denied. Appellant then timely filed eight 

separate photocopies of the same notice of appeal,2 one at each underlying

docket number. Each notice of appeal listed all eight docket numbers.3 

Appellant then filed eight separate Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

1925(b) concise statements of errors complained of on appeal.4

On June 1, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Commonwealth

v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), announced a prospective rule that “the 

proper practice under [Pa.R.A.P.] 341(a) is to file separate appeals from an 

order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket.” Id. at 977; see 

also Pa.R.A.P. 341(a), Official Note (mandating that “[w]here ... one or more 

orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more 

than one judgment, separate notices of appeal must be filed.” (emphasis 

added)). The failure to file separate appeals under these circumstances 

“requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Walker, 185 A.3d at 977.

____________________________________________

2 Appellant purports to appeal from the June 13, 2019 Order denying his 

motion for reconsideration of sentence. However, “[a]n appeal from an order 

denying a post-trial motion is procedurally improper because a direct appeal 

in a criminal proceeding lies from the judgment of sentence.” 

Commonwealth v. W.H.M., 932 A.2d 155, 158 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2007). 

3 This Court did not issue a rule to show cause upon Appellant concerning the 

propriety of his notices of appeal, which we address below.

4 Appellant challenges the voluntariness of his guilty pleas and the 

ineffectiveness of his plea counsel. 
J-S74028-19

- 3 -

In Commonwealth v. Creese, 216 A.3d 1142 (Pa. Super. 2019), this 

Court interpreted Walker “as instructing that we may not accept a notice of 

appeal listing multiple docket numbers, even if those notices are included in 

the records of each case. Instead a notice of appeal may contain only one 

docket.” Id. at 1144. Accordingly, because each of Appellant’s notices of

appeal in the instant case, which he filed after Walker and Creese, contain

eight separate docket numbers, we are compelled to quash the

appeal. See id.

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/7/20