J -S33007-19 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

JOSEPH FORMICA 

Appellant : No. 1049 MDA 2018 

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 25, 2018 

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

No(s): CP-36-CR-0004689-2011, 

CP-36-CR-0004737-2011 

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 13, 2019 

Joseph Formica appeals pro se from the order, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Lancaster County, denying his pro se petition filed pursuant 

to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Based 

upon our Supreme Court's decision, Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 

969 (Pa. 2018), we quash the appeal. 

The trial court summarized the procedural history as follows: 

Following a consolidated jury trial, [Formica] was convicted on 

March 8, 2013[,] of the following offenses: [on] Docket 4689- 

2011, one count of [r]ape, one count of [i]nvoluntary [d]eviate 

[s]exual [i]ntercourse ("IDSI"), one count of [a]ggravated 

[i]ndecent [a]ssault, and one count of [i]ndecent [a]ssault; [on] 

Docket 4737-2011, one count of [s]tatutory [s]exual [a]ssault, 

one count of IDSI, one count of [u]nlawful [c]ontact with a 

[m]inor, and one count of [c]orruption of [m]inors. On May 28, 

2013, the [c]ourt sentenced [Formica] to an aggregate term of 

twenty-three (23) years' to forty-six (46) years' incarceration in a 

state correctional institution. 
J -S33007-19 

[Formica] did not thereafter appeal his judgment of sentence to 

the Superior Court. Rather, on May 22, 2014, [Formica] filed a 

pro se [m]otion for [p]ost-[c]onviction [c]ollateral [r]elief 

pursuant to the [PCRA]. The Court appointed Maryjean Glick, 

Esquire, to represent [Formica] in the disposition of his PCRA 

claim. On September 22, 2014, following a Grazier hearing, the 

[c]ourt permitted [Formica] to proceed pro se and allowed counsel 

to withdraw. 

After the [c]ourt granted [Formica] numerous extensions of time 

to file an amended PCRA [p]etition, and subsequent to a brief stay 

of the proceedings, Jeffrey Conrad, Esquire, entered his 

appearance for [Formica] on September 7, 2016. Following a 

hearing held on September 9, 2016[,] regarding [Formica's] PCRA 

[p]etition, the [c]ourt resentenced [Formica] and dismissed the 

[p]etition. On November 21, 2016, the [c]ourt granted [a]ttorney 

Conrad's motion to withdraw. On December 5, 2016, [Formica], 

pro se, filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court, which 

dismissed [Formica's] appeal on February 3, 2017[,] due to 

[Formica's] failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 3517. 

On September 8, 2017, [Formica] filed his second pro se PCRA 

Petition. The [c]ourt appointed Christopher P. Lyden, Esquire, to 

represent [Formica] in the disposition of his PCRA claim. On 

December 15, 2017, after finding no non -frivolous issues in the 

Petition, counsel filed a [n]o-[m]erit Metter pursuant to 

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

Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), in which 

counsel sought to withdraw from representing [Formica]. On 

February 16, 2018, the [c]ourt denied counsel's motion to 

withdraw due to an error in counsel's [n]o-[m]erit Metter 

regarding the date [Formica's] judgment of sentence became 

final. Counsel filed a second [n]o-[m]erit Metter/[nn]otion to 

[w]ithdraw on February 28, 2018. 

On May 2, 2018, following an independent review of the record, 

the [c]ourt granted counsel's motion to withdraw and issued a 

notice of intent to dismiss [Formica's] PCRA [p]etition without a 

hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. After receiving no response 

from [Formica], the [c]ourt dismissed [Formica's] PCRA [p]etition 

on May 25, 2018. The instant appeal followed. 

[Formica] was ordered to file a concise statement of matters 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On June 

- 2 - 
J -S33007-19 

22, 2018, [Formica] filed a timely 1925(b) Statement. The 

Commonwealth filed its response on July 17, 2018. 

Trial Court Opinion, 8/30/18, at 1-3 (footnotes omitted). 

Before we can delve into the merits of Formica's appeal, we must 

address the fact that he filed a single notice of appeal from an order that 

resolved issues arising on two different docket numbers. Pennsylvania Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 341(a) directs that "an appeal may be taken as a right 

from any final order of a government unit or trial court." Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). 

"The Official Note to Rule 341 was amended in 2013 to provide clarification 

regarding proper compliance with Rule 341(a)." Commonwealth v. Walker, 

185 A.3d 969, 976 (Pa. 2018). The Official Note now reads: 

Where . . . 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. Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 

A.2d 111, 113 & n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quashing appeal taken by 

single notice of appeal from order on remand for consideration 

under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons' judgments of sentence). 

Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note. 

In Walker, our Supreme Court construed the above language as a 

"bright -line" rule mandating practitioners "file separate appeals from an order 

that resolves issues arising on more than one docket. The failure to do so 

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

This mandate applies to all appeals. See Id.; Commonwealth v. Williams, 

206 A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2019) (holding Rule 341(a) requires practitioners 

file separate notices of appeal in PCRA appeals involving more than one docket 

-3 
J -S33007-19 

number). The Supreme Court's ruling only applies prospectively. Walker, 

185 A.3d at 77. 

Walker was filed on June 1, 2018. Here, Formica filed his notice of 

appeal containing two docket numbers on June 11, 2018. He hand -dated the 

notice of appeal June 3, 2018. Because Formica's notice of appeal post-dates 

the Walker decision, he was required to file separate notices of appeal for 

each docket number. Therefore, we must quash this appeal in accordance 

with Rule 341 and Walker. 

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judge Ott joins the Memorandum. 

President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott notes her dissent. 

Judgment Entered. 

f---7 Jseph D. Seletyn, 

Prothonotary 

Date: 08/13/2019 

-4