J-A23039-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROBERT E. LUPTAK, JR.,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 402 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 28, 2019

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-37-CR-0000512-2015, 

CP-37-CR-0000902-2015, CP-37-CR-0001073-2014, 

CP-37-CR-0001075-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2019

Robert E. Luptak, Jr. (“Luptak”), appeals from the judgments of 

sentence entered at four docket numbers, following his convictions of multiple 

counts of possession of controlled substances, possession with intent to 

deliver controlled substances, and theft by receiving stolen property.1 We 

quash the appeal.

In April 2017, a jury convicted Luptak of multiple counts of the abovedescribed charges. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Luptak to an 

aggregate prison term of 111⁄2 to 23 years, with a credit for 212 days of time 

served, and the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive minimum sentence being 

____________________________________________

1 See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a).
J-A23039-19

- 2 -

9 years and 7 months. Luptak filed post-sentence Motions, which the trial 

court denied. No appeal followed.

Subsequently, Luptak timely filed a Petition for relief pursuant to the 

Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).2 The PCRA court granted Luptak’s 

Petition, and reinstated his direct appeal rights, nunc pro tunc. Thereafter, 

Luptak filed a single Notice of Appeal of his judgments of sentence entered at 

the four separate docket numbers, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal. 

In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. filed June 1, 2018), 

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that, “where a single order resolves 

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

filed for each case.” Id. at 971; see also id. at 977 (applying the Supreme 

Court’s holding prospectively). 

Because Luptak filed his appeal after the Supreme Court had decided 

Walker, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why the appeal should not 

be quashed pursuant to Walker. In response, Luptak filed a Petition for 

Remand, to allow him to file additional notices of appeal. By an Order entered 

on April 16, 2019, this Court deferred the Petition, for consideration by the 

merits panel. Order, 4/16/19. 

____________________________________________

2 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-A23039-19

- 3 -

On June 24, 2019, Luptak filed a Stipulation whereby the 

Commonwealth and Luptak stipulated to the consolidation of the appeals 

under a single docket number. Stipulation, 6/24/19. However, as there is 

only one appeal pending before this Court, there is nothing to consolidate. 

Further, this Stipulation is not sufficient to negate the bright-line, mandatory 

rule imposed by Walker. 

It is undisputed that Luptak filed a single Notice of Appeal from the 

sentences entered at multiple docket numbers. Because Luptak filed his 

Notice of Appeal after our Supreme Court’s decision in Walker, we are 

required to quash the appeal, without prejudice to Lowry’s right to seek relief 

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).3 See Commonwealth v. 

Williams, 206 A.3d 573, 576 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quashing a non-compliant 

notice of appeal filed after Walker).

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/13/2019

____________________________________________

3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.