J-S43008-19

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SONJA PAIGE HARTMAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1718 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 1, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0000892-2018, 

CP-22-CR-0002218-2017, CP-22-CR-0006551-2017

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2019

Appellant, Sonja Paige Hartman, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, following her guilty 

plea to aggravated assault, endangering the welfare of children (“EWOC”), 

driving while operating privilege is suspended/revoked, theft of services, 

hindering apprehension/prosecution, theft by unlawful taking, conspiracy to 

commit theft by unlawful taking, and false reporting. Based on our Supreme 

Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, ___ Pa. ___, 185 A.3d 969 

(2018), we must quash the appeal. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. In 

2017, the Commonwealth charged Appellant at Docket No. 2218-2017, with 

aggravated assault, EWOC, and driving while operating privilege is 

suspended/revoked. The charges stemmed from a video of Appellant striking 
J-S43008-19

- 2 -

her son’s head with her fist while he was buckled into a car seat. 

Subsequently, the Commonwealth charged Appellant at Docket No. 6551-

2017, with theft of services for repeatedly driving on the Pennsylvania 

Turnpike without paying tolls. Finally, at Docket No. 892-2018, the 

Commonwealth charged Appellant with hindering apprehension/prosecution, 

theft by unlawful taking, conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking, and 

false reporting. The charges arose from Appellant’s report of a robbery at the 

Subway restaurant where she worked. Appellant’s cell phone records, 

however, revealed she and her boyfriend had conspired to rob the Subway

restaurant. 

On June 7, 2018, Appellant entered open guilty pleas at all three docket 

numbers. With the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report, the 

court sentenced Appellant on August 1, 2018, to an aggregate term of two 

and one-half (21⁄2) to seven (7) years’ incarceration, plus five (5) years’ 

probation. On Monday, August 13, 2018, Appellant timely filed a postsentence motion, which the court denied on September 6, 2018. Appellant 

filed a single notice of appeal at all three docket numbers on October 5, 2018. 

On October 8, 2018, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement 

of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely 

complied on October 26, 2018. 

Preliminarily, on June 1, 2018, the Walker Court held that the common 

practice of filing a single notice of appeal from an order involving more than 
J-S43008-19

- 3 -

one docket number would no longer be tolerated, because the practice violates 

Pa.R.A.P. 341, which requires the filing of “separate appeals from an order 

that resolves issues arising on more than one docket.” Walker, supra at 

___, 185 A.3d at 977. The failure to file separate appeals under these 

circumstances “requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. 

Instantly, Appellant filed a single notice of appeal from the judgments 

of sentence at three separate docket numbers. Appellant’s single notice of 

appeal was filed on October 5, 2018, which postdates the Walker decision.

In this Court’s January 18, 2019 order, we directed Appellant to show cause 

why the appeal should not be quashed under the Walker rule. In response, 

Appellant acknowledged she mistakenly filed a single notice of appeal for all 

three docket numbers, in reliance on the previous interpretation of the rule. 

Absent more, we are bound by the Walker decision and must quash this 

appeal. 

Appeal quashed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/13/2019