J-S12007-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WILLIAM M. HALL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2433 EDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 10, 2019

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

No(s): CP-15-CR-0002018-2012

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JULY 08, 2020

Appellant, William M. Hall, purports to appeal pro se from the order 

denying his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 

Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We quash the appeal and remand for further 

proceedings.

On August 27, 2013, at the above-captioned trial court docket number, 

Appellant pled guilty to two counts each of statutory sexual assault and 

corruption of minors.1 The trial court sentenced Appellant to serve a term of 

incarceration of eleven and one-half to twenty-three months and a 

consecutive ten-year term of probation. In addition, Appellant was 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3122.2 and 6301(a)(1)(ii).
J-S12007-20

- 2 -

determined to be a sexually violent predator. Appellant did not file a direct 

appeal. Subsequently, on January 8, 2014, Appellant filed a PCRA petition, 

and PCRA counsel was appointed. The PCRA court dismissed the petition on 

July 7, 2014. Appellant did not appeal the PCRA court’s determination.

On November 23, 2015, at docket number CP-15-CR-0004596-2015, 

Appellant was charged with failure to comply with the SORNA registration 

requirements2related to his prior conviction at the above-captioned docket 

number, i.e., CP-15-CR-0002018-2012. Appellant pled guilty to the violation 

on May 9, 2016. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or a direct 

appeal.

On April 30, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition at docket 

number CP-15-CR-0004596-2015. Appellant did not file a concurrent PCRA 

petition at the above-captioned docket number. However, on May 17, 2018, 

Appellant filed a pro se “memorandum of law in support of [the PCRA petition]” 

bearing both trial court docket numbers.

On November 14, 2018, the PCRA court issued a notice of intent to 

dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, which contained both trial court docket 

numbers. Thereafter, on July 10, 2019, the PCRA court entered an order 

dismissing the PCRA petition that also included both trial court docket 

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1(a)(2).
J-S12007-20

- 3 -

numbers. Appellant then filed this pro se appeal.3 The PCRA court did not 

direct Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement in this matter. On 

August 30, 2019, the PCRA court filed its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a).

Appellant presents the following issues:

I. Did the P.C.R.A. [c]ourt err in denying the instant P.C.R.A. 

[p]etition declined to correct [Appellant’s] conviction/sentence, 

when such was deemed to be illegal and therefore unconstitutional 

under the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling in 

Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (July 19, 2017)?

II. Did the P.C.R.A. [c]ourt err in denying the instant P.C.R.A. 

[p]etition when [Appellant] raised a legality of sentence claim 

which through the Court’s inherent power always retains the 

jurisdiction to correct?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

Although not raised by the parties, prior to addressing the merits of the 

appeal, we sua sponte address the threshold question of the appealability of 

the order before us. “The appealability of an order directly implicates the 

jurisdiction of the court asked to review the order.” Commonwealth v. 

Sabula, 46 A.3d 1287, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Brister, 16 A.3d 530, 533 (Pa. Super. 2011)). As our Supreme Court has 

stated, generally “appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals taken 

____________________________________________

3 We note that appointed PCRA counsel filed a timely appeal at trial court 

docket number CP-15-CR-0004596-2015, which received the Superior Court 

docket number of 2431 EDA 2019. That appeal is addressed in a separate 

decision.
J-S12007-20

- 4 -

from a final order.” Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 64 A.3d 602, 608 

(Pa. 2013).

In addition, “[A]ny petition [raising a claim cognizable under the PCRA]

filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final will be treated as a PCRA 

petition.” Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

The PCRA is “the exclusive vehicle for obtaining post-conviction collateral 

relief ... regardless of the manner in which the petition is titled.” 

Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259, 1261 (Pa. Super. 2001).

Our review of the record reflects that Appellant did not file a PCRA 

petition in the above-captioned matter at the same time that he filed his PCRA 

petition at CP-15-CR-0004596-2015. However, on May 17, 2018, Appellant 

filed a pro se memorandum of law in support of the PCRA petition bearing 

both docket numbers, which was docketed at the above-captioned docket 

number. On November 14, 2018, the PCRA court issued a notice of intent to 

dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, wherein the PCRA court stated that it 

was accepting Appellant’s filing at CP-15-CR-0002018-2012 as a second PCRA 

petition. Notice of Intent, 11/14/18, at 1 n.1. We agree with the PCRA court 

that this filing was, indeed, a second PCRA petition. Jackson, 30 A.3d at 521.

On July 10, 2019, in an order containing both trial court docket 

numbers, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. However, in its Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court set forth the following discussion explaining 
J-S12007-20

- 5 -

that it erroneously included the above-captioned trial court docket number in 

its order disposing of Appellant’s PCRA petition:

The confusion on Appellant’s part in filing this pro se appeal 

to a PCRA Petition that does not exist is due to an error made by 

this court. We erroneously added the docket number for the 2012 

matter[, CP-15-CR-0002018-2012,] to the caption of our Order 

dismissing Appellant’s PCRA Petition in the matter of 

Commonwealth v. Hall, CR-0004596-2015 (“the 2015 matter”). 

As a result, Appellant’s present attempt to “appeal” the denial of 

a PCRA petition in the 2012 matter is a nullity. There is nothing 

for the Superior Court to review. Therefore, we respectfully 

request that the above captioned appeal be dismissed.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/30/19, at 1.

Thus, pursuant to the PCRA court’s explanation, the order of July 10, 

2019, does not pertain to the docketed case in this matter because the abovecaptioned docket number was “erroneously added” to the order. In light of 

this clerical error, we are constrained to conclude that the PCRA court failed 

to enter a final order addressing Appellant’s second PCRA petition in this case. 

Therefore, that matter is still pending before the PCRA court.

Hence, we quash the instant appeal as having been taken from a nonexistent order. Furthermore, we remand this matter to the PCRA court for a 

determination regarding Appellant’s second PCRA petition filed at the abovecaptioned docket number.

Appeal quashed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.
J-S12007-20

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/8/2020