J-S72031-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMES ALAN HAMMAN, JR., 

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 920 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, February 6, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Fulton County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-29-CR-0000201-2016, 

CP-29-CR-0000202-2016, CP-29-CR-0000206-2016.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2019

James Hamman, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed 

after a jury convicted him of multiple offenses including burglary, criminal 

trespass, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and possession 

of a firearm. Based upon our Supreme Court's recent decision in 

Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), we quash the appeal.

A brief summary of the relevant facts is as follows. On October 15, 

2016, Brian Mackey contacted the Pennsylvania State Police to report that his 

cabin was forcefully broken into and various items of personal property were 

missing. Ranger Greg Eitner, who assisted the PSP in the investigation, later

discovered that some of the missing items from Mr. Mackey’s cabin were 

located at a pawn shop. The items had serial numbers that identified them as 

belonging to Mr. Mackey. The pawn shop worker confirmed that Hamman sold 
J-S72031-18

- 2 -

him these items. Hamman admitted that he and other individuals agreed to 

break into Mr. Mackey’s cabin to steal property, and sold the stolen items for 

cash.

On October 26, 2016, another gentleman, Glenn Mellinger, discovered 

that someone broke into his cabin. Mr. Mellinger’s rifle and log splitter were 

both missing. A trooper found imprints of a glove with a distinct emblem on 

it at the scene. A glove with the same emblem was found in Hamman’s van. 

A pawn shop broker identified Mr. Mellinger’s log splitter and indicated that he 

purchased it from Hamman. Another pawn shop operator confirmed through 

documents and video surveillance footage that Hamman sold him Mr. 

Mellinger’s rifle. Hamman also admitted to an investigating officer that he 

was present at the Mellinger’s cabin.

While canvasing the area for additional burglaries, the police also 

discovered a break-in at the home of David Bland.

On January 13, 2017, the police filed criminal informations for the three 

burglaries at three separate dockets. At case numbers 201, 202, and 206 of 

2016, they charged Hamman with a total of twenty-two criminal offenses,

including burglary and criminal trespass. After originally entering a guilty 

plea, the court granted Hamman’s request to withdraw it. The case went to 
J-S72031-18

- 3 -

a jury trial, where Hamman was convicted of multiple offenses on all three 

dockets.1

The court sentenced Hamman on February 6, 2018 on the three trial 

docket numbers. The court issued separate sentencing orders for each docket 

number. Hamman filed a post-sentence motion on February 16, 2018. 

Following the denial of Hamman’s motion on May 8, 2018, Hamman filed the 

instant timely appeal on June 6, 2018. The trial court’s order denying 

Hamman’s motion contained all three docket numbers in the caption. The 

notice of appeal also bears all three trial court docket numbers.

Hamman presents the following issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient 

to prove that Hamman committed burglary or 

conspired to commit burglary of the Brian Mackey 

cabin and that Hamman committed burglary of the 

Glenn Mellinger Cabin?

2. Whether, in the alternative, the weight of the evidence 

was so weak and inconclusive such that no possibility 

of guilt should have been determined that Hamman 

committed the burglary or conspired to commit 

burglary of the Brian Mackey Cabin and that Hamman 

committed burglary of the Glen Mellinger Cabin?

3. Whether Hamman’s sentence, while being within the 

sentencing guidelines, should be modified as being 

unreasonable considering the circumstances of the 

case?

See Hamman’s Brief at 7.

____________________________________________

1 The burglary of the Bland home was tried along with the Mackey and 

Mellinger cases, but is not a subject of the instant appeal. See 

Commonwealth’s Brief at 5, n. 3.
J-S72031-18

- 4 -

Before we review the substantive issues presented by Hamman on 

appeal, we must first address a procedural question. In Commonwealth v. 

Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme Court has recently held, 

“prospectively, 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. 

In Walker, the Commonwealth had filed a single notice of appeal in 

response to a single order that decided defendants’ suppression motions in 

four cases with four different docket numbers. The Supreme Court concluded 

that the Official Note to Rule 341 of Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure2 “provides a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to 

file separate notices of appeal,” and that “the failure to do so requires the 

appellate court to quash the appeal.” Walker, at 976-77. Because the 

mandate in the Official Note was contrary to “decades of case law from this 

Court and the intermediate appellate courts,” the Walker Court announced 

that its holding would apply prospectively only. Id. at 977. Only appeals filed 

____________________________________________

2 The Official Note to Rule 341 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure provides, in relevant part:

Where, however, one or more orders resolves issues arising 

on more than one docket or relating to more than one 

judgment, separate notices of appeals must be filed. 

Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111, 113 & n.3 (Pa. 

Super. 2007) (quashing appeal taken by single notice of 

appeal from order on remand for consideration under 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons' judgments of sentence).

Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.
J-S72031-18

- 5 -

after June 1, 2018, the date Walker was filed, would require the filing of 

separate notices of appeal. Id. 

Because Hamman filed his notice of appeal on June 6, 2018, Walker 

applies. The order from which Hamman appeals lists three trial court docket 

numbers, including one from the Brian Mackey burglary, and another from the 

Glen Mellinger matter. Because Hamman appeals the convictions for both the 

Mackey and Mellinger charges, under Walker, he needed to file separate 

notices of appeal for each of these dockets. He did not do so. Thus, we must 

quash the appeal.

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/26/2019