J. A25001/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

JILLIAN EILEEN PROPPS, : No. 214 MDA 2016

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Order Entered January 15, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No. CP-22-CR-0005888-2010

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., AND STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2016

Jillian Eileen Propps appeals from the January 15, 2016 order entered 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County that denied her second 

petition for expungement. We quash.

The trial court set forth the following:

. . . [O]n November 18, 2010, Trooper Shaun Pugh 

of the Pennsylvania State Police filed a criminal 

complaint against [a]ppellant for the charge of Theft 

by Deception. The complaint alleged that 

[appellant], as office manager for the victim, 

Stoner Graphix, failed to deduct money out of her 

paychecks for her dependent health insurance, 

thereby depriving Stoner Graphix of $10,957.90. A 

preliminary hearing was held on November 22, 2010, 

and the charge was waived for court. The case was 

scheduled before this Honorable Court on 

September 19, 2011. However, on August 24, 2011, 

 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J. A25001/16

- 2 -

the Commonwealth filed a Motion for Dismissal upon 

Satisfaction.

In this Motion, the Commonwealth averred 

that [a]ppellant had paid the amount associated with 

the charges and had paid the costs of court. Since 

no use or threat of force was present in this matter, 

and satisfaction had been made to the victim, the 

Commonwealth requested that the matter be 

dismissed upon satisfaction. The Motion was granted 

by Order dated August 25, 2011, and the case was 

dismissed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 586.

On December 22, 2014, [a]ppellant filed a 

Petition for Expungement pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 

790. This Court issued an Order on January 20, 

2015[1] denying [a]ppellant’s Petition, since 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 586 dismissals are not eligible for 

expungement under 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9122. 

Appellant sought reconsideration of this Order, which 

was denied [on March 6, 2015].

Trial court opinion, 5/20/15 at 1-2, adopted by trial court opinion, 3/25/16.

The record reflects that on April 2, 2015, which was 71 days after the 

trial court entered its order denying appellant’s petition for expungement, 

appellant filed a notice of appeal to this court. On May 14, 2015, this court 

ordered appellant to show cause as to why her appeal should not be 

quashed as untimely pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).2 See Commonwealth 

v. Propps, No. 598 MDA 2015 (order of court, 5/14/15). On May 22, 2015, 

appellant filed a timely memorandum in response to this court’s order to 

 

1 The record reflects that the trial court dated the order January 20, 2015, 

but that it was not docketed until January 21, 2015.

2

Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days 

after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.
J. A25001/16

- 3 -

show cause. In that memorandum, appellant’s counsel responded that he 

filed appellant’s notice of appeal to this court late because he “erroneously 

anticipated that upon being apprised of the applicable law regarding the 

correct procedure in matters such as this, and realizing its mistake,” the trial 

court would have afforded appellant a hearing. (Propps, No. 598 MDA 

2015, appellant’s memorandum in response to show cause why appeal 

should not be quashed, 5/22/15 at 2.) Appellant’s counsel further explained 

that even though he was “well aware of the time limits enumerated in

Pa.R.A.P. 903(a),” he “determined the filing of [a] Notice of Appeal would no 

longer afford the trial court the opportunity to correct its error. . . .” (Id. at 

3-4.) On July 7, 2015, this court found that appellant failed to present a 

legal argument to justify this court’s jurisdiction, and, as such, we quashed 

appellant’s appeal as untimely. (Propps, No. 598 MDA 2015, order of court 

7/7/15.)

On November 12, 2015, appellant filed another petition for 

expungement. On January 15, 2016, the trial court denied and dismissed 

that petition because it:

entered an Order on January 21, 2015 disposing of 

[appellant’s] previously filed Petition for 

Expungement. [Appellant] did not timely appeal this 

Court’s January 21, 2015 Order, which has become a 

final Order that cannot be reconsidered by the filing 

of a new Petition.

Order of court, 1/15/16.
J. A25001/16

- 4 -

On January 29, 2016, appellant filed a notice of appeal to this court 

from the trial court’s January 15, 2016 order. On February 3, 2016, the trial 

court ordered appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal. Appellant complied, and the trial court filed 

a Rule 1925(a) opinion that adopted its May 20, 2015 Rule 1925(a) opinion 

that it filed in the appeal docketed at 598 MDA 2015.

In her brief to this court, appellant’s counsel summarizes the 

procedural history of the case and then states:

[u]nfortunately for [appellant], her prior counsel did 

not grasp the interplay between a Motion for 

Reconsideration and a Notice of Appeal. . . . 

. . . . Instead, he filed a single notice of appeal to 

this Court on April 2, 2015. Then, as one might 

expect given this turn of events, this Court issued an 

Order on July 7, 2015, quashing [appellant’s] prior 

appeal as untimely. Sadly, this left [appellant] with 

no review of [the trial court’s] order denying 

expungement.

Given this state of affairs, the undersigned 

filed a second Petition for Expungement . . . .

Appellant’s brief at 7-8.

This appeal amounts to nothing more than appellant’s attempt to 

circumvent her failure to timely appeal the January 21, 2015 order that 

denied and dismissed her petition for expungement, which was the final 

appealable order in appellant’s quest for expungement. Although this court 

afforded appellant the opportunity to show cause why her appeal should not 

be dismissed as untimely, this court concluded that the reasons appellant set 
J. A25001/16

- 5 -

forth failed to present a legal argument to justify our jurisdiction. 

Consequently, this court quashed the appeal as untimely. Nothing in the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure or the laws of this Commonwealth entitles 

appellant to yet another “bite at the apple.” Having failed to timely appeal 

the trial court’s final order that denied and dismissed her petition for 

expungement and having failed to justify this court’s jurisdiction in her 

previous appeal at No. 598 MDA 2015, appellant’s filing of another petition 

for expungement cannot and does not turn back time and breathe new life 

into appellate review. Therefore, we quash this appeal.

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/17/2016