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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 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

### fromthe PCRA

### Order Entered May25, 2018 Inthe 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.: 

### FILEDAUGUST 

### 13, 

### 2019 Joseph Formica appeals 

### pro se 

### from the order, entered in 

### the Court of Common Pleas

### of Lancaster County, denying his

### prose 

### petitionfiled 

### pursuant to 

### the Post 

### Conviction ReliefAct (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 courtsummarized 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

### prose andallowed counsel to 

### withdraw. Afterthe 

### [c]ourt granted [Formica] numerous extensions of

### time to file anamended PCRA

### [p]etition, and

### subsequent to a 

### briefstay 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 

### November21, 

### 2016,the 

### [c]ourtgranted 

### [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 

### Commonwealthv. 

### Finley, 550A.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 ofthe 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 

### pursuantto Pa.R.Crim.P.907.

### After receiving no response 

### from 

### [Formica], the 

### [c]ourtdismissed 

### [Formica's] PCRA 

### [p]etition on May25, 2018. The 

### instant appeal 

### followed. [Formica] was ordered to 

### file a concise 

### statement of 

### matters complained of on appeal 

### pursuantto Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(b). OnJune

- 2 -J

### -S33007-19

22, 2018, 

### [Formica] filed a 

### timely 1925(b) Statement. The 

### Commonwealthfiled 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 propercompliance

### 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 

### morethan one

### judgment, separate notices 

### ofappeal 

### 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 ofsentence). Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note. In 

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

### "bright-line" rule 

### mandating 

### practitioners

### "fileseparateappeals

### from an 

### order 

### that resolves issues arising on more than one docket. The 

### failure to do so 

### requires the appellate 

### courtto quash

### the appeal." 

### Walker, 185 A.3d at 977. This 

### mandate appliesto all appeals. 

### See

## Id.; Commonwealth v. 

### Williams, 206 A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 

### 2019) (holding Rule 

### 341(a) requires 

### practitioners file separate noticesofappeal in PCRAappeals 

### involving morethan one

### docket 

## -3J

### -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 numberson June 11, 2018. He hand-dated 

### the notice ofappeal June3, 2018. Because Formica's notice 

### ofappeal 

### 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. PresidentJudge Emeritus Ford 

### Elliott notes her dissent.



### Judgment Entered. 

# f---7 Jseph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary

Date: 

### 08/13/2019



## -4