J-A19030-19

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BERNARD THOMAS, 

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1992 EDA 2018

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered, June 26, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011548-2013, 

CP-51-CR-0011552-2013.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2019

Bernard Thomas appeals from the order that denied his first petition 

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We 

quash the appeal. 

Thomas entered guilty pleas at two separate dockets. The PCRA court 

summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history as follows:

On July 7, 2015, [Thomas] appeared before this Court 

and entered a negotiated plea. On transcript CP-51-CR0011548-2013, [Thomas] entered a guilty plea to the 

charge of Possession of Firearm by a Prohibited Person and, 

on transcript CP-51-CR-0011552-2013, he entered guilty 

pleas to charges of Attempted Murder, Possession of 

Firearm by Prohibited Person, and Conspiracy to Commit 

Murder. In exchange for his plea, the Commonwealth and 

[Thomas] negotiated a sentence of incarceration of twelve 

to thirty years. Immediately following this Court’s 

acceptance of [Thomas’] guilty pleas, it imposed the agreed 

upon sentences of twelve to thirty years’ incarceration on 
J-A19030-19

- 2 -

the Attempted Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Murder 

charges set forth in CP-51-CR-0011552-2013, and a 

concurrent sentence of five to ten years’ incarceration on 

the Possession of Firearm by a Prohibited Person charge 

under CP-51-CR-0011548-2013. [Thomas] did not file 

post-sentence motions or a direct appeal after he was 

sentenced.

On January 5, 2016, [Thomas] filed a timely pro se PCRA 

petition. Counsel was appointed to represent him and on 

August 23, 2017, counsel filed an amended petition 

asserting, inter alia, that trial counsel provided him with 

ineffective assistance of counsel by permitting him to enter 

a guilty plea that culminated in [Thomas] agreeing to an 

illegal sentence given that the plea deal required [Thomas] 

to be sentenced on two inchoate crimes in violation of the 

law. On June 25, 2018, this Court heard argument and 

granted in part, and denied in part, PCRA relief. Specifically, 

this Court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to nol pros 

the conspiracy charge because the sentence imposed 

thereon was illegal but denied relief on [Thomas’] request 

that he be permitted to file a post-sentence motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea, and if it was denied, a direct 

appeal.

PCRA Court Opinion, 11/26/18, at 1-2 (citations omitted). This timely appeal 

followed. Both Thomas and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 

1925.

Thomas raises the following issues:

a. Counsel was ineffective for failing to perfect an appeal 

and [Thomas’] post sentence and direct appeal rights 

[should] be reinstated.

b. The [PCRA court] erred and abused [its] discretion when 

[it] denied [Thomas’] [PCRA] petition affording him the 

opportunity to [withdraw] his guilty plea. In that

[Thomas] at the time he entered his guilty plea, could 

not have knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered 

into a guilty plea that clearly had him agreeing to an 

illegal sentence of incarceration for two inchoate crimes. 
J-A19030-19

- 3 -

[Thomas] therefore, could not have reasonably, 

knowingly and intelligently have understood the terms of 

the sentence, as they were illegal on their face, and not 

enforceable at law, and therefore manifest injustice 

occurred.

Thomas’ Brief at 5-6 (excess capitalization omitted).

Before addressing the merits of these issues, we must first address the 

fact that Thomas filed a single notice of appeal on which he identifies two 

separate docket numbers. In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 

2018), our Supreme Court considered whether to quash an appeal when one 

notice of appeal was filed for orders entered at more than one docket number. 

The Official Note accompanying Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) provides that “[w]here . . . 

one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket . . . 

separate notices of appeal must be filed.” In Walker, our Supreme Court 

concluded that the “Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line mandatory 

instruction for practitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” Walker, 185 

A.3d at 976-77. Thus, the Court held that for appeals filed after June 1, 2018, 

the date the Walker decision was filed, “when a single order resolves issues 

arising on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must 

be filed.” Id. at 977. Our Supreme Court emphasized that the “failure to do 

so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Id.
J-A19030-19

- 4 -

Here, on July 16, 2018, Thomas filed a single notice of appeal from the 

order denying post-conviction relief at two separate docket numbers.1 

Because Thomas filed his notice of appeal after our Supreme Court’s decision 

in Walker, we are constrained to quash this appeal. See Commonwealth 

v. Williams, 206 A.3d 573, 576 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quashing pro se PCRA 

petitioner’s single appeal, “in accordance with Rule 341 and Walker,” because 

it was filed on June 5, 2018, and listed multiple docket numbers).2

Appeal quashed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/9/19

____________________________________________

1 On March 5, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause why this appeal 

should not be quashed based on Walker. Thomas’ counsel did not file a 

response.

2 Were we to reach the merits of Thomas’ claims, we would affirm the PCRA 

court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Thomas waived his first issue because 

he failed to raise it in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v. 

Smith, 146 A.3d 257, 262 (Pa. Super. 2016). As to his second claim, given 

the PCRA court’s partial grant of his PCRA petition, Thomas cannot establish 

prejudice. See Commonwealth v. Kelly, 78 A.3d 1136, 1138 n.1 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (holding that although sentences for attempted murder and 

conspiracy to commit murder should have merged, case need not be 

remanded for resentencing since sentence that this Court vacated was 

imposed concurrently).