J-S19015-19

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

STEVEN BURNS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1911 EDA 2018

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 20, 2018

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0008633-2013, 

CP-51-CR-0008635-2013

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019

Steven Burns appeals from the trial court’s June 20, 2018 order that 

denied his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 

Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we are constrained to quash this 

appeal.

The PCRA court summarized the procedural history as follows:

On March 12, 2013, [Burns] and co-defendant, Rodney Smith, 

forced their way into the home of Melissa Mulligan, demanded 

money and proceeded to ransack her house. When she was 

unable to produce any money, [Burns] threatened to kill her and 

her four-year-old son, forced her to lie face down on the floor and 

discharged his gun at her twice in the presence of the terrorized 

four-year-old child. The police arrived at the scene and knocked 

on the door interrupting [Burns’] game of Russian Roulette. Both 

[Burns] and Smith ran out the back but quickly realized they were 

cornered. [Burns] resisted arrest when the officers attempted to 

handcuff him and he hit an officer in the face with the handcuffs 

causing a laceration to the officer. [Burns] had a prior conviction 

for robbery, was on parole and was prohibited from owning or 
J-S19015-19

- 2 -

being near a firearm, whether operable or not, at the time of these 

crimes.

On January, 15, 2014, [Burns] entered an open guilty plea before 

the Honorable Robert Coleman for attempted murder, aggravated 

assault, robbery, burglary, conspiracy to commit robbery, carrying 

a firearm as a person not to possess firearms, possession of an 

instrument of crime and simple assault. On March 18, 2014, 

[Burns] was sentenced to an aggregate term of 21 to 42 years[’]

state incarceration. [Burns] filed a post-sentence motion seeking 

reconsideration of his sentence which was denied by operation of 

law. On July 25, 2014, [Burns] filed an appeal with the Superior 

Court of Pennsylvania arguing, amongst other claims, that his 

guilty plea was involuntary and coerced by the trial court and that 

the sentence for aggravated assault should have merged with his 

sentence for attempted murder. On March 2, 2016, [Burns’

judgment of sentence] was affirmed in part and vacated in part. 

Specifically, the Superior Court vacated [Burns’] sentence for 

aggravated assault, however, the Court did not remand for 

resentencing because it determined that the sentencing scheme 

was not disrupted. The Court affirmed [Burns’] judgment of 

sentence on all other issues raised.

On March 29, 2016, [Burns] filed his first timely pro se PCRA 

petition. On July 8, 2016, [Burns] filed a supplemental pro se

petition. On February 8, 2017, John Cotter, Esquire, was assigned 

to represent [Burns]. Mr. Cotter filed an amended petition on 

behalf of [Burns] on February 24, 2017. On August 19, 2017, the 

Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss [Burns’] PCRA petition. 

After [a] thorough review of the record and the above[-

]document, [the PCRA court] sent [Burns] a [Pa.R.Crim.P.] 907 

notice of intent to dismiss on May 22, 2018. Counsel replied to 

this notice on May 24, 2018[,] noting his objection only to [the 

PCRA court’s] denial of [Burns’] request to file a supplemental 

amended PCRA petition alleging that [Burns] did not get proper 

credit for time-served. On June 20, 2018, [the PCRA court] 

dismissed [Burns’] PCRA petition as without merit. On June 25, 

2018, [Burns] appealed the dismissal [to] the Pennsylvania 

Superior Court.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/31/18, at 1-3 (footnotes omitted).
J-S19015-19

- 3 -

Before we can delve into the merits of Burns’ appeal, we must address 

the fact that he filed a single notice of appeal from an order that resolved 

issues arising on two different docket numbers.1 Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 341(a) directs that “an appeal may be taken as a right 

from any final order of a government unit or trial court.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). 

“The Official Note to Rule 341 was amended in 2013 to provide clarification 

regarding proper compliance with Rule 341(a).” Commonwealth v. Walker, 

185 A.3d 969, 976 (Pa. 2018). The Official Note now reads: 

Where . . . one or more orders resolves issues arising on more 

than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate 

notices of appeal 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.

In Walker, our Supreme Court construed the above language as a 

“bright-line” rule that mandated practitioners “file separate appeals from an 

order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket. The failure to do 

so requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Walker, 185 A.3d at 

977. This mandate applies to all appeals filed after June 1, 2018. See id.;

Commonwealth v. Williams, 2019 PA Super 81 (Pa. Super. 2019) (holding 

____________________________________________

1

In case CP-51-CR0008633-2013, the trial court sentenced Burns for 

attempted murder, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901, aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

2702, burglary, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502, and possession of firearm, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 6105. In case CP-51-CR0008635-2013, the trial court sentenced Burns for 

simple assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701.
J-S19015-19

- 4 -

that Rule 341(a) requires practitioners file separate notices of appeal in PCRA 

appeals involving more than one docket number); see also In re M.P., 2019 

PA Super 55 (Pa. Super. 2019) (holding that “all litigants who seek appellate 

review with this Court—whether in criminal, civil, or family cases—that 

Walker is the law of the Commonwealth” and separate notices of appeal are 

required). However, the Supreme Court tempered the harshness of its ruling 

by making its ruling prospective only. Walker, 185 A.3d at 77. Accordingly, 

the Walker Court directed that “in future cases Rule 341 will, in accordance 

with its Official Note, require that when a single order resolves issues arising 

on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. 

The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Id.

Walker was filed on June 1, 2018. Here, Burns’ notice of appeal 

containing two docket numbers was hand dated June 25, 2018. The Clerk of 

Courts time-stamped the notice of appeal on June 26, 2018. Burns filed his

non-compliant notice of appeal after the Walker decision. Therefore, we must 

quash this appeal in accordance with Rule 341 and Walker.

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/30/19