J-S28030-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CARL GOULD 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1746 MDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019

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

No(s): CP-36-CR-0004022-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CARL ERIC GOULD 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1747 MDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019

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

No(s): CP-36-CR-0005383-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CARL GOULD 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1748 MDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019

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

No(s): CP-36-CR-0000402-2016
J-S28030-20

- 2 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CARL GOULD 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1749 MDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019

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

No(s): CP-36-CR-0000403-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CARL GOULD 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1750 MDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019

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

No(s): CP-36-CR-0001870-2016

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED AUGUST 13, 2020

Appellant, Carl Eric Gould, appeals pro se from the order entered August 

29, 2019, which dismissed his petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the 

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

In August 2015, the Commonwealth criminally charged Appellant with 

numerous drug-related offenses. In the information docketed at 

CP-36-CR-0004022-2015 (“4022-2015”), the Commonwealth charged 
J-S28030-20

- 3 -

Appellant with two counts of possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”). In 

the information docketed at CP-36-CR-0005383-2015 (“5383-2015”), the 

Commonwealth charged Appellant with PWID (cocaine), possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and conspiracy.1 Following a bench trial, the court found 

Appellant guilty of the aforementioned crimes and sentenced him to an 

aggregate term of two and one-half to seven years' incarceration. This Court 

affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on May 9, 2018 and our Supreme 

Court subsequently denied allocatur on October 2, 2018. Commonwealth v. 

Gould, 187 A.3d 927 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied 194 A.3d 1040 (Pa. 

2018). 

On May 9, 2019, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition and the 

PCRA court subsequently appointed counsel to represent Appellant in the 

proceedings. On July 24, 2019, however, court-appointed counsel filed a 

motion to withdraw as counsel and a no-merit letter pursuant to 

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

v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On July 31, 2019, the 

PCRA court issued notice that it intended to dismiss Appellant’s PCRA petition 

____________________________________________

1

In addition, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with similar drug charges 

in the information docketed at CP-36-CR-0000402-2016 (“0402-2016”), 

CP-36-CR-0000403-2016 (“0403-2016”), and CP-36-CR-0001870-2016

(“1870-2016”). The trial court, however, dismissed the charges lodged at 

dockets 0402-2016 and 0403-2016 and the Commonwealth nolle prossed the 

charges listed at docket 1870-2016. See N.T. Suppression Hearing, 9/15/17, 

at 21-22. 
J-S28030-20

- 4 -

in 20 days without holding a hearing. PCRA Court Order, 7/31/19, at 1; see 

also Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Appellant filed a response to the Turner/Finley

letter on August 15, 2019. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition and 

granted counsel leave to withdraw on August 29, 2019.2 PCRA Court’s Order, 

8/29/19, at 1. 

On October 1, 2019, Appellant filed a timely pro so notice of appeal to 

this Court.3 The notice of appeal contained multiple trial court docket 

____________________________________________

2 The PCRA court’s 907 notice and its order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA 

petition listed five docket numbers: 4022-2015, 5383-2015, 0402-2016, 

0403-2016, and 1870-2016. See PCRA Court’s Order, 7/31/19, at 1; PCRA 

Court’s Order, 8/29/19, at 1. Appellant’s notice of appeal also listed each of 

the aforementioned five trial court docket numbers. Appellant, however, was 

only convicted for the crimes docketed at 4022-2015 and 5383-2015. As 

mentioned above, the trial court dismissed dockets 0402-2016 and 

0403-2016. The Commonwealth also nolle prossed the charges docketed at 

1870-2016. 

3 Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 903, a “notice of appeal. . . shall be filed within 30 

days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 

903(a). This Court, however, previously recognized that:

[t]he pro se prisoner's state of incarceration prohibits him 

from directly filing an appeal with the appellate court and 

prohibits any monitoring of the filing process. Therefore[,] 

. . . a pro se prisoner's appeal shall be deemed to be filed 

on the date that he delivers the appeal to prison authorities 

and/or places his notice of appeal in the institutional 

mailbox.

Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parallel 

citations omitted). 

Herein, we conclude that Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA 

court dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition on August 29, 2019. Thus, to be 

considered timely, Appellant needed to file his notice of appeal by September 
J-S28030-20

- 5 -

numbers.

4

 On October 24, 2019, the PCRA ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(1). That order complied with all of the requirements set forth in Rule 

1925(b)(3). Appellant, however, did not file a concise statement. As such, in 

the PCRA court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court declared that all of 

____________________________________________

30, 2019. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. The trial court’s docket reflects that 

Appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal on October 1, 2019. Nonetheless, 

as Appellant is a pro se prisoner, he is entitled to the benefit of the prisoner 

mailbox rule. As such, we may accept “any reasonably verifiable evidence” 

that Appellant “deposit[ed] the appeal with the prison authorities” on or before 

September 30, 2019. Perez, 799 A.2d at 851. Appellant’s notice of appeal 

dated September 22, 2019 supports the conclusion that he timely deposited 

the notice with prison authorities. Accordingly, for purposes of this matter, 

we shall treat Appellant’s notice of appeal as timely filed.

4 Our review of the certified record reveals that five separate photocopies of 

Appellant’s notice of appeal, each listing docket numbers 4022-2015, 

5383-2015, 0402-2016, 0403-2016, and 1870-2016, were entered on the trial 

court dockets, and accordingly, on this Court's docket. On December 16, 

2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be 

quashed based upon our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. 

Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding that “where a single order resolves 

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

filed for each of those cases” pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341 and its note). 

Appellant did not file a response. On July 9, 2020, however, an en banc panel 

of this Court decided Commonwealth v. Johnson, 2020 WL 3869723 (Pa. 

Super. 2020) (en banc) concerning the proper application of Commonwealth 

v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) in light of Commonwealth v. Creese, 

216 A.3d 1142 (Pa. Super. 2019) (reading Walker as a mandate to quash 

appeal unless notice of appeal contains only one trial court docket number). 

The Johnson Court explicitly overruled Creese, supra and held that as long 

as the appellant files a separate notice of appeal at each trial court docket, 

“[t]he fact that the notices [of appeal] contained [more than one trial court 

docket number] is of no consequence.” Id. at *11. Accordingly, we decline 

to quash the instant appeal. 
J-S28030-20

- 6 -

Appellant’s claims on appeal must be deemed waived. PCRA Court Opinion, 

11/27/19, at 1.

We agree with the PCRA court and conclude that, since Appellant failed 

to comply with the PCRA court's order to file and serve a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal, Appellant waived all of his claims on appeal.5

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues not included in the [Rule 1925(b) 

s]tatement ... are waived”); Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 

(Pa. 2005) (“in order to preserve their claims for appellate review, appellants 

must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a statement of 

matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not 

raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be waived.”) (internal citations, 

quotations, and corrections omitted) (some internal capitalization omitted).

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 08/13/2020

____________________________________________

5 Appellant is not eligible for the remand procedure contemplated at Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(c)(3) since he was not represented by counsel on October 24, 2019,

when the PCRA ordered the filing of a concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(1). See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) (permitting remand in criminal cases 

where appellate court concludes that counsel for a defendant has been per se

ineffective in failing to file, or to timely file, a concise statement).