J-A17022-17

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROBERT WILLIAMS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1631 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 7, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011614-2007

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., RANSOM, J. and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2017

Appellant, Robert Williams, appeals from the revocation court’s order 

of April 7, 2016, denying his motion for access to the full transcript of his 

sentencing, a portion of which the court has purportedly sealed and declined 

to make available to either of the parties involved or the public. For the 

reasons set forth below, we are constrained to quash the appeal.

We derive the following statement of facts and procedure from the 

record. In August 2008, following a bench trial before the Honorable Genece 

Brinkley, Appellant was found guilty of carrying a firearm without a license, 

carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia, possession of an instrument of 

crime, possession of a loaded weapon, simple assault, possession with intent 
J-A17022-17

- 2 -

to deliver, and intentional possession of a controlled substance.1 Appellant 

was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of eleven and one-half to twentythree months county incarceration, plus seven years of reporting probation. 

Appellant was paroled in June 2009. In July 2014, Appellant’s 

probation was revoked, and the court sentenced him to a term of three to 

six months of county incarceration plus five years reporting probation. In 

December 2014, the court granted Appellant’s motion for early parole. In 

December 2015, the trial court found Appellant in technical violation of his 

probation.2 

In the days preceding Appellant’s resentencing hearing, Appellant’s 

lead counsel sent the court the following email:

Dear Judge Brinkley, ... At the last meeting at the probation 

office [Appellant] was discussing his visits to the Veteran’s 

Hospital, schools and other places he’s been visiting. He 

indicated to [his probation officer and the assistant district 

attorney] that he would feel more comfortable relaying some of 

his thoughts and experiences to Your Honor in camera. All 

parties thought this might be a good idea after [Appellant] 

explained his reasons and he gave specific reasons to them for 

wanting an in camera discussion. Obviously the remainder of 

the hearing would be in open court. I would respectfully ask the 

court to consider and grant this request.

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a), 6106.1(a), 2701(a); 35 §§ 

780-113(a)(30), 780-113(a)(16), respectively.

2 This was the fourth time the court found Appellant to be in technical 

violation. See Trial Court Opinion (“TCO”), 9/19/2016, at 2-3.
J-A17022-17

- 3 -

N.T. 4/7/2016, at 11-12.3 

On the date of the hearing, February 5, 2016, Judge Brinkley, 

Appellant, Appellant’s girlfriend Oneka Maraj, publicly known as “Niki 

Manaj,” lead counsel, the assistant district attorney, and Appellant’s 

probation officer went into chambers where an in camera discussion was 

held. TCO, 9/19/2016, at 27. A court reporter recorded this discussion; 

however, this portion of the record was not transcribed at the direction of 

the court. TCO, 9/19/2016, at 10; N.T. 4/7/2016, at 28. The relevant 

portion of the sentencing transcript reads:

THE COURT: There was a request - prior request by counsel to 

allow [Appellant] to say some things to the court in camera, and 

I will grant the request and do that, at this time.

(At this time, an in-camera discussion was held. This part of the 

transcript will be marked confidential and sealed by the court.)

N.T. 2/5/2016, at 70. 

The remainder of the sentencing hearing was conducted in open court. 

The court revoked Appellant’s probation and resentenced him to six to 

twelve months of county incarceration, plus six years reporting probation, 

with immediate parole to house arrest. In March 2016, Appellant filed an 

appeal from his judgment of sentence, which is currently pending before this 

Court. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 730 EDA 2016.

____________________________________________

3 Appellant is a successful rap artist publicly known as “Meek Mill.” 
J-A17022-17

- 4 -

Appellant filed a motion for access to the full transcript of the February 

5, 2016 sentencing proceedings. In the motion, Appellant recounted two 

incidents wherein the court reporter who had recorded the in camera

discussion denied Appellant’s requests for the full transcripts, citing the 

court’s directive that the discussion was sealed. Motion for Access to Full 

Transcript of February 5, 2016 Sentencing Proceedings, 2/24/2016, at 4-5. 

In April 2016, the court heard oral argument on the motion. The court 

confirmed that it directed the court reporter by phone not to furnish the 

notes to the Appellant, Commonwealth, or to the public.4 N.T. 4/7/2016, at 

17, 22-24. The court subsequently explained that if the transcript was 

released to Appellant it would also be simultaneously released to the public. 

Id. at 21-24; Defendant’s and Commonwealth’s Agreed Upon Statement of 

Record, 11/28/2016, at 2. N.T. 4/7/2016, at 17, 22-24. Appellant withdrew 

his motion, and the court’s order was not placed on the court’s docket. Id. 

In May 2016, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the court’s ruling. 

Appellant filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement wherein he 

raised errors pertaining to both his appeal from the judgment of sentence 

and the court’s ruling on the sealing of transcripts. The revocation court 

filed a responsive opinion in September 2016. 

____________________________________________

4 We note that although Appellant, the Commonwealth, and the Court refer 

to the court’s order to seal the in camera portion of the transcripts, the 

record and docket are devoid of any such order. 
J-A17022-17

- 5 -

In November 2016, this Court issued an Order directing Appellant to 

show cause why the instant appeal should not be quashed as having been 

taken from an order which is neither part of the record nor entered upon the 

docket of the trial court. Order, 11/16/ 2016; see Pa.R.A.P. 301(a)(1). 

Appellant filed a responsive pleading joined by the Commonwealth that 

outlined the procedural history surrounding the ruling, and this Court 

subsequently entered the following Order:

In accordance with this Court’s Order of November 16, 2016, 

and in consideration of Appellant’s response, the issue raised by 

this Court’s Order will be referred to the panel assigned to decide 

the merits of this appeal and the issue will be considered by that 

panel. 

Order, 11/30/2016.

Appellant presents the following question for our review:

1. Whether the trial court’s April 7, 2016 bench ruling violated 

[Appellant’s] right of access to the transcript of his sentencing, 

and whether that ruling constitutes legal error and an abuse of 

discretion under Pennsylvania law governing a defendant’s right 

of access to the transcripts of proceedings under the protections 

afforded by the United States’ and Pennsylvania’s Constitutions 

and Pennsylvania’s settled procedures for sealing transcripts?

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

As an initial matter, “[w]e do not have jurisdiction over non-appealable 

orders.” Commonwealth v. Frey, 41 A.3d 605, 609 (Pa. Super. 2012). 

“[N]o order of a court shall be appealable until it has been entered upon the 

appropriate docket in the lower court.” Pa.R.A.P. 301(a)(1). Here, a review 

of the trial court’s docket reflects that no appealable order was entered on 
J-A17022-17

- 6 -

April 7, 2016. Further, the record establishes that the in camera discussion 

was held at Appellant’s request. N.T. 4/7/2016, at 11-12. Thus, the 

decision to hold a portion of the hearing off the record was not adverse to 

Appellant’s interests. Finally, Appellant’s motion for full access to the 

sentencing transcripts was withdrawn. N.T. 4/7/2016, at 17, 22-24. 

Therefore, the court did not rule on the motion, and there is nothing for this 

Court to review. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to hear the instant 

appeal. 

Accordingly, finding that no appealable order exists, we quash this 

appeal. 

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/8/2017