J-S40025-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CLIFFORD JOSEPH KAROLSKI 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 80 WDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 31, 2018

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

No(s): CP-04-CR-0000177-2016, 

CP-04-CR-0000342-2013, CP-04-CR-0000762-2015, 

CP-04-CR-0000765-2012

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 31, 2019

Clifford Joseph Karolski appeals from the order denying his petition for 

relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. We quash this appeal pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 

A.3d 969, 977 (Pa. 2018).

Karolski filed the instant PCRA petition on February 26, 2018, addressing 

four trial court docket numbers. See PCRA Petition, filed 2/26/18 (listing 

docket numbers CP-04-CR-0000765-2012, CP-04-CR-0000342-2013, CP-04-

CR-0000762-2015, and CP-04-CR-0000177-2016). Karolski’s PCRA petition

alleged the ineffectiveness of trial counsel, Timothy Carland, Esquire, and 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S40025-19

- 2 -

identified the convictions at issue as those for corruption of minors, 

aggravated indecent assault, and criminal mischief. PCRA Petition at 1, 5.

The PCRA court appointed counsel who filed a Turner/Finley letter with 

the court and a motion to withdraw as counsel.1 See Turner/Finley Letter,

filed 11/26/18. The court granted counsel’s motion and entered an order 

denying Karolski’s PCRA petition with a caption containing all four docket

numbers. See Order and Preliminary Notice, filed 11/28/18; Final Order, filed 

12/31/18. 

Karolski filed a single notice of appeal, listing all four docket numbers. 

The trial court stated in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that it did not consider 

Karolski’s having done so to be a problem. The court explained that, in its 

view, Karolski’s PCRA petition, despite listing multiple docket numbers, only 

raised issues as to a single docket number, the one ending in 762. See 

1925(a) Op., filed 2/26/19, at 1 n.1. 

In Walker, our Supreme Court stated that “when a single order resolves 

issues arising on more than one . . . docket, separate notices of appeal must 

be filed.” 185 A.3d at 977. The Court directed that in subsequent cases, the 

failure to abide by this rule would result in the quashing of the appeal. Id.

The Supreme Court decided Walker on June 1, 2018, and Karolski filed 

his notice of appeal on January 17, 2019. Walker therefore applies here. The 

suggestion of the trial court and counsel that Walker does not apply because 

____________________________________________

1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 
J-S40025-19

- 3 -

Karolski only raises issues relating to a single docket, the docket number 

ending in 762, is meritless. Attorney Carland represented Karolski not only on 

the docket number ending in 762, but also on the docket number ending in 

177, and Karolski’s PCRA petition identifies the convictions from both dockets. 

Although Karolski’s PCRA petition makes some claims relating to continuances 

appearing only on the docket number ending in 762, other allegations are 

applicable to either docket. Karolski’s notice of appeal is from an order 

resolving issues on more than one docket, and in violation of Walker, Karolski 

filed a single notice of appeal. We therefore quash this appeal.

Appeal quashed. 

President Judge Emeritus Bender joins the Memorandum.

Judge Pellegrini files a Dissenting Memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/31/19