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

- 000 0402

- 2016J

- 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 i nformation docketed at

CP

- 36

- CR

- 0004022

- 2015 (“4022

- 2015”) , the Commonwealth chargedJ

- 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 al locatur 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. O n 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 O rder, 7/3 1/19 , 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 T he 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 ; PCR A 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 0 402

- 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 incarcera tion 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 auth orities 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, w e conclude that Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA court dismisse d Appellant’s PCRA petition on August 29 , 2019. Thus, to be considered timely, Appellant needed to file his notice of appeal by SeptemberJ

- S28030

- 20

- 5

-

numbers

. 4 On October 24, 2019
, the PCRA ordered Appellant to file a co ncise

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

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

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

the PCRA court’s Rule 19 25(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 benefi t 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 mat ter, 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 docket s , and acco rdingly, 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 , 1 85 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 J uly 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 no tice 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. A ccordingly, 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 fil e 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. 19 25(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 eligibl e for the remand procedure contemplated at Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) since he was not represented by counsel on O ctober 24, 2019, when the PCRA ordered the fil ing of a concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1)

. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) (permitting rem and 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).