J-S45003-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ODELL JOHNSON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2823 EDA 2018

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 21, 2018

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0009190-2010, 

CP-51-CR-0009191-2010

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

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED OCTOBER 17, 2019

Respectfully, I dissent for reasons similar to those outlined in 

Commonwealth v. Hackley, 1769 MDA 2018, at 4 n.1 (September 23, 

2019) (non-precedential decision).

1

Odell Johnson (Johnson) filed a single notice of appeal captioned with 

two docket numbers, CP-51-CR-0009190 (9090) and CP-51-CR-0009191 

(9191). The sole order on review in this case is captioned with a single trial 

court docket number, 9191, and 9090 is omitted. It appears that the 

prothonotary never entered a separate order bearing that latter docket 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1

If filed after May 1, 2019, Superior Court memorandum decisions may be 

cited for their persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).
J-S45003-19

- 2 -

number. This reasonably suggested that the two matters were treated as one 

for filing and appellate purposes. In fact, after Johnson filed his notice of 

appeal, the trial court entered an order pursuant to 1925(b) captioned with 

both trial court docket numbers and requiring Johnson to file “a [single] 

Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, within twenty-one days 

of the date of this [single] ORDER[.]”

These facts mirror those in Hackley, where we found that defects in the 

notice of appeal were not attributable to the appellant:

In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our 

Supreme Court held that under Pa.R.A.P. 341, an appeal must be 

quashed if a defendant files only a single notice of appeal as to 

multiple docket numbers. Although Hackley filed one notice of 

appeal for two docket numbers, Walker is inapplicable here 

because the trial court and the Prothonotary treated the 

proceedings in a way that is tantamount to complete consolidation 

under one docket number.

Here, certified records on appeal were prepared for docket 

numbers 2017-3539 and 2017-3536, but only the latter includes 

an order of judgment of sentence. The order bears both docket 

numbers, but advises Hackley of having 30 days “from this order” 

(in the singular), to appeal to the Superior Court. In so writing, 

the trial court essentially told Hackley that there was one order, 

and that he was entitled to only one appeal. This Court held 

recently in Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 303 EDA 2019 *3 (Pa. 

Super. September 5, 2019), that a party may file a single notice 

of appeal in these circumstances because it results from a 

breakdown of court operations.

The case docket for 2017-3539 further confirms the existence of 

at most a single order because it does not contain a judgment of 

sentence or any other document relating to the present appellate 

proceedings. Instead, the Prothonotary’s handwritten notes next 

to several entries on the case docket sheet direct the reader to 

“See 3536-17.” Pa.R.A.P. 301(b) provides that “Every order shall 

be set forth on a separate document,” but the trial court only set 
J-S45003-19

- 3 -

forth one document – the order entered at 2017-3536, which bore 

the two docket numbers. This means there was no separate order 

entered at 2017-3539 for Hackley to appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.

301(a) (“no order of a court shall be appealable until it has been 

entered upon the appropriate docket in the lower court.”) 

(Emphasis added). Indeed, the inclusion of two docket numbers 

in the one order raises the question of whether any appealable 

order was entered at all. See Pa.R.A.P. 301(b) (making entry of 

a separate document for each order a “requisite” for 

appealability). Thus, it is clear that Hackley’s notice of appeal 

comports with Walker because the trial court was responsible for 

any of its potential defects.

Hackley, 1769 MDA 2018, at 4 n.1

As in Hackley, Johnson’s non-compliance with Walker resulted from 

the prompting of the trial court and the prothonotary, who treated the 

consolidated proceedings as a single case. The trial court repeatedly advised

that Johnson needed to appeal from only a single order to preserve his 

appellate issues. His appeal should not be quashed because of acting in 

accordance with the trial court’s misstatements. Thus, I would attribute 

Johnson’s defective notice of appeal to a breakdown in court operations and 

decline to find Walker applicable.

2

____________________________________________

2 See also Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 303 EDA 2019 *3 (Pa. Super. 

September 5, 2019) (“We have many times declined to quash an appeal when 

the defect resulted from an appellant’s acting in accordance with 

misinformation relayed to him by the trial court.”); Commonwealth v. Cox, 

114 WDA 2019, at 1–2 (Pa. Super. September 13, 2019) (non-precedential 

decision) (same).