J-S28034-19

J-S28035-19

J-S28036-19

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIMOTHY ALLEN COHICK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 927 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 16, 2018

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

No(s): CP-41-CR-0000662-2017, 

CP-41-CR-0001350-2017, CP-41-CR-0001929-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIMOTHY ALLEN COHICK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1497 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 16, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000662-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIMOTHY ALLEN COHICK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1506 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 16, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0001350-2017

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
J-S28034-19

J-S28035-19

J-S28036-19

- 2 -

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2019

As my learned colleagues faithfully apply precedent in disposing of this 

appeal, I join the Majority Memorandum. I write separately to note my belief 

that, if Appellant was informed that he could obtain appellate review of his 

judgment of sentence by filing “an” appeal, or “a” notice of appeal when he 

was advised of his appellate rights pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(D)(3), such 

would warrant a finding of a breakdown of court processes excusing his lack 

of compliance with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), 

and its progeny. Accord Commonwealth v. Flowers, 149 A.3d 867, 872 

(Pa.Super. 2016) (holding breakdown in court operation granted this Court 

jurisdiction over untimely appeal where trial court failed to correct counsel’s 

misstatement about deadline for filing appeal and incorrectly provided that 

the appellant had an additional thirty days to appeal from order denying 

motion for reconsideration of sentence imposed upon revocation of 

intermediate punishment); Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 929 

(Pa.Super. 2003) (“[W]e decline to quash this appeal because [the late 

appeal] resulted from the trial court’s misstatement of the appeal period, 

which operated as a breakdown in the court’s operation.”) (quotation marks 

omitted); Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 791 (Pa.Super. 

2001) (same). 

However, I am unable to discern from the record in the instant case 

whether such a breakdown occurred because the transcript from Appellant’s
J-S28034-19

J-S28035-19

J-S28036-19

- 3 -

resentencing was not ordered or included in the certified record. Since

Appellant bore the burden of securing all necessary documents for the certified 

record, the absence of proof that no breakdown occurred here does not 

warrant relief.1 

Therefore, I join the Majority Memorandum. 

____________________________________________

1

In light of the missing transcript, if this Court had jurisdiction over this 

appeal, the result would be the denial of counsel’s petition to withdraw and 

remand for the completion of the record and the filing of a new brief. See 

Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2015) 

(denying petition to withdraw and remanding for counsel to obtain missing 

notes of testimony).