J-S09025-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DANIEL GREGOR 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2489 EDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 30, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-46-CR-0000238-2008, 

CP-46-CR-0008845-2010

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: Filed: March 20, 2020

Daniel Gregor appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Montgomery County, dismissing as untimely his petition filed pursuant 

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

quash.

On July 8, 2008, Gregor entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count 

of possession with intent to deliver (PWID),

1 and the court sentenced him to 

three years’ probation (Docket # CP-46-CR-0000238-2008). On October 28, 

2009, the court sentenced him to 4 to 12 months’ imprisonment for a 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(3). 
J-S09025-20

- 2 -

probation violation (also indexed at Docket # CP-46-CR-0000238-2008). On 

October 27, 2011, Gregor entered an open guilty plea to involuntary deviate 

sexual intercourse (IDSI) with a child under thirteen,

2 (Docket # CP-46-CR0008845-2010), and he stipulated to a probation violation in the matter 

indexed at CP-46-CR-0000238-2008. On January 30, 2012, at Docket # CP46-0008845-2010, the court sentenced Gregor to 71⁄2 to 15 years’ 

imprisonment for IDSI and a concurrent sentence of 3-6 years’ imprisonment 

for the probation violation. 

Gregor did not file a direct appeal. On March 13, 2019, Gregor file a pro 

se PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley3

“no-merit” letter and a petition to withdraw. On July 3, 2019, the PCRA 

determined Gregor’s petition was untimely and issued notice of intent to 

dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Gregor filed a response. The court, 

finding no issues entitled Gregor to relief or required a hearing, dismissed the 

petition by order dated July 30, 2019. In its order, the PCRA advised Gregor 

of his appellate rights as follows: “Defendant is hereby advised of his right to 

appeal the dismissal of his PCRA Petition, either pro se or through privately 

retained counsel, to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania within thirty (30) days 

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(b).

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

Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (1988) (en banc). 
J-S09025-20

- 3 -

of the date of this Order.” Order, 7/30/19.4 This timely appeal followed on 

August 29, 2019.

5

Gregor filed a single notice of appeal from an order that resolved issues 

relating to two different docket numbers. On January 3, 2020, this Court 

issued a rule to show cause why the instant appeal should not be quashed 

pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 976 (Pa. 2018). 

Gregor filed a timely response, explaining he is not “lettered in the law.” 

Response to Rule to Show Cause, 1/15/20.6 

In Walker,

____________________________________________

4 We recognize that in Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157 (Pa. 

Super. 2019), our Court declined to quash an appeal where a defendant filed 

one notice of appeal listing two docket numbers. Id. at 158. In that case, 

the trial court advised a pro se defendant to file “a written notice of appeal to 

the Superior Court” from a single trial court order listing multiple docket 

numbers under one caption. Id. at 159 (emphasis in original). Our Court 

concluded that the defendant had been misinformed by the trial court, which 

amounted to a “breakdown in the court system” and excused the defendant’s 

lack of compliance with Walker. Id. at 160. Instantly, and unlike 

Stansbury, we discern no “misstatements” in the PCRA court’s notice of 

appellate rights and, therefore, we find no “breakdown in court operations[.]” 

Id. at 159. 

5 We note Gregor’s brief does not include a Statement of Questions Involved, 

as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2116, but appears to challenge PCCA counsel’s 

effectiveness. His brief contains various other substantial defects. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Although we are willing to construe liberally materials filed 

by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an 

appellant. See Commonwealth v. Tchirkow 160 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 

2017); Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005). 

 

6 On January 30, 2020, this Court discharged the rule to show cause and 

referred the matter to the merits panel. Order, 1/30/20. 
J-S09025-20

- 4 -

our Supreme Court held–unequivocally–that “prospectively, 

where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one 

docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case.” 

[Walker, 185 A.3d] at 971 (emphasis added). The Supreme 

Court observed that the Official Note to Rule 341 of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure “provides a bright-line 

mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of 

appeal,” and accordingly, determined that “the failure to do so 

requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” [Id.] at 976-77 

(emphasis added). Because this mandate was contrary to decades 

of case law, the Supreme Court specified that the requirement 

would apply only to appeals filed after June 1, 2018, the date 

Walker was filed. Id.

Commonwealth v. Nichols, 208 A.3d 1087, 1089–90 (Pa. Super. 2019). 

In Nichols, this Court quashed because the appellant included multiple

docket numbers on single notice of appeal. Id. at 1090. We concluded that

quashal was required, even though the appellant was appealing from a PCRA

court order that also listed multiple docket numbers. Id. at 1089-90. Here,

Gregor listed two docket numbers on his single notice of appeal; his notice of 

appeal, dated August 29, 2019, was filed over one year after Walker. 

Accordingly, although the PCRA court’s order dismissing his petition also listed 

two docket numbers, we are constrained to quash the instant appeal. 

Walker, supra; Nichols, supra. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 206 

A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quashing pro se PCRA petitioner’s single appeal, 

“in accordance with Rule 341 and Walker,” because it was filed on June 5, 

2018, and listed multiple docket numbers).

Appeal quashed.
J-S09025-20

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/20/2020