J-S29027-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

IRA IVAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2917 EDA 2018

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 24, 2018

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0002963-2012, 

CP-51-CR-0002965-2012

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

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 06, 2019

Ira Ivan appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas 

of Philadelphia County, denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We quash the 

appeal. 

On June 26, 2013, Ivan was convicted, in a nonjury trial, of two counts 

each of attempted murder, reckless endangerment of another person, 

conspiracy and possessing an instrument of crime. The charges stemmed 

from a shooting that occurred in the context of a dispute between two groups 

of people arising from a derogatory comment made by a member of one group 

to the girlfriend of a member of the second group. On September 4, 2013, 

the trial court sentenced Ivan to an aggregate term of 251⁄2 to 51 years’ 

imprisonment. This Court affirmed Ivan’s judgment of sentence by 
J-S29027-19

- 2 -

memorandum decision dated December 18, 2014, and our Supreme Court 

denied allowance of appeal on March 31, 2015. 

On March 2, 2016, Ivan filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court 

appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition asserting claims relating to 

the alleged ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel. After a hearing, the 

court denied relief by order dated August 24, 2018. Ivan filed a timely notice 

of appeal on September 15, 2018. 

Prior to addressing the merits of Ivan’s appeal, we must address the 

fact that he filed a single notice of appeal from an order resolving issues 

relating to two different docket numbers. The Official Note to Pennsylvania 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 provides as follows:

Where . . . one or more orders resolves issues arising on more 

than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate 

notices of appeals 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 Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme 

Court construed the above language as constituting “a bright-line mandatory 

instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” Id. at 976-77. 

Therefore, the Walker Court held that “the proper practice under Rule 341(a) 

is to 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.” Id. at 977. The Court tempered its holding by making it 
J-S29027-19

- 3 -

prospective only, recognizing that “[t]he amendment to the Official Note to 

Rule 341 was contrary to decades of case law from this Court and the 

intermediate appellate courts that, while disapproving of the practice of failing 

to file multiple appeals, seldom quashed appeals as a result.” Id. Accordingly, 

the Walker Court directed that “in future cases Rule 341 will, in accordance 

with its Official Note, require that when a single order resolves issues arising 

on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. 

The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Id. (emphasis added).

The Walker opinion was filed on June 1, 2018. Ivan’s counseled notice 

of appeal, referencing two docket numbers, was filed in the Philadelphia Court 

of Common Pleas on September 15, 2018, more than three months after 

Walker was issued. In light of this fact, we are compelled to quash this appeal 

in accordance with Rule 341 and Walker.

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

President Judge Emeritus Bender joins the Memorandum.

President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott notes her dissent.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/6/19