J-S16036-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DIANA LEE PENWELL AKA: DIANA 

LEE NATHAN,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1159 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 12, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001450-2010, 

CP-36-CR-0002989-2010, CP-36-CR-0004896-2015

BEFORE: OTT, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MAY 31, 2019

Diana Lee Penwell a/k/a Diana Lee Nathan (“Penwell”) appeals from the 

judgment of sentence imposed following the revocation of her parole and 

probation. We are constrained to quash the appeal.

Briefly, in November 2011, Penwell pled guilty, at CP-36-CR-0001450-

2010 (“No. 1450-2010”), to robbery and simple assault.1 The trial court 

sentenced her to 22 months to 5 years in prison, followed by 5 years of 

probation. Also in November 2011, at CP-36-CR-0002989-2010 (“No. 2989-

2010”), Penwell pled guilty to receiving stolen property,2 and received a 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 2701(a)(3).

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a).
J-S16036-19

- 2 -

sentence of 3 years of probation. In September 2015, at CP-36-CR-0004896-

2015 (“No. 4896-2015”), Penwell pled guilty to conspiracy to commit theft by 

deception,3 and received a sentence of 1 year of probation.4

On January 9, 2018, the trial court issued a capias and bench warrant 

for Penwell’s arrest, asserting that she had violated the terms of her 

probation/parole. The capias Petition alleged that Penwell had (1) missed 

several scheduled appointments with her probation officer; (2) tested positive 

for cocaine in December 2017; (3) admitted to abusing cocaine and heroin; 

and (4) repeatedly violated a no-contact Order prohibiting her from having 

contact with her husband, Taylor Penwell, Sr. 

The probation violation court held a hearing on March 14, 2018, at the 

close of which it found Penwell in violation of her parole and probation and 

revoked them. On June 12, 2018, the probation violation court sentenced 

Penwell as follows:

 No. 1450-2010: 11⁄2 to 3 years in prison, parole terminated; 

 No. 2989-2010: 1 to 2 years in prison (to run concurrent to 

the sentence at No. 1450-2010), parole terminated; and

 No. 4896-2015: parole terminated.

____________________________________________

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903.

4 We will collectively hereinafter refer to Nos. 1450-2010, 2989-2010, and 

4896-2015 as the “three trial court docket numbers.”
J-S16036-19

- 3 -

Notably, Penwell filed a single, timely Notice of Appeal on July 12, 2018. 

The caption of the Notice of Appeal listed all three trial court docket numbers.5 

Penwell then filed a timely, court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise 

Statement of errors complained of on appeal on August 2, 2018.6In response, 

the trial court issued a thorough Rule 1925(a) Opinion, addressing and 

rejecting Penwell’s sole issue (a challenge to the discretionary aspects of her 

sentence).

Before we reach the issue presented by Penwell on appeal, we must first

address the fact that she filed a single Notice of Appeal for her appeals at the

three trial court docket numbers. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

341(a) provides that “an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order 

of a ... trial court.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). Additionally, the Official Note to Rule 

341 directs that “[w]here ... one or more orders resolves issues arising on 

____________________________________________

5 Thereafter, on August 2, 2018, Penwell filed a single Amended Notice of 

Appeal, which likewise contained all three trial court docket numbers, to reflect 

that she had filed a Post-sentence Motion on June 22, 2018.

6 On August 27, 2018, Penwell filed with this Court an Application/Stipulation

(hereinafter, the “Stipulation”), signed by both the prosecutor and Penwell’s 

public defender counsel, wherein the parties agreed that, “although the 

above-captioned appeal should originally have been filed as three separate 

appeals, one for each [trial court docket] [n]umber, the appeals should 

properly be consolidated and argued together in all particulars as if but a single 

appeal.” Stipulation, 8/27/18, at ¶ 6. By a per curiam Order entered three 

days later, this Court denied the Stipulation, noting that there was only one 

Notice of Appeal filed by Penwell. 
J-S16036-19

- 4 -

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

of appeal must be filed.” Id., Official Note (emphasis added).

In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme 

Court clarified that “[t]he Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line[,]

mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” Id.

at 976-77 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Walker Court held that failure 

to comply with the dictates of Rule 341 and its Official Note would result in 

quashal of the appeal. Id. at 977;7 see also id. (indicating that the Court’s 

holding would be applied prospectively only, as “[t]he amendment to the 

Official Note to Rule 341 was contrary to decades of case law ....”).

The Walker decision was filed on June 1, 2018. Here, Penwell filed her

____________________________________________

7 A panel of this Court, applying Walker in its decision, recently issued the 

following Order to parties seeking review in this Court: “AND NOW, it is 

ORDERED that all parties seeking review with the Superior Court shall file 

notices of appeal as mandated by Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

341 and [] Walker []. Failure to comply will result in quashal of the appeal.” 

In re M.P., 2019 PA Super 55, at *18 (Pa. Super. filed February 22, 2019). 
J-S16036-19

- 5 -

Notice of Appeal, listing all three trial court docket numbers, on July 12, 2018.8 

Because Penwell’s non-compliant Notice of Appeal was filed after the date of 

the Walker decision, we are constrained to quash the appeal.9 See Walker,

____________________________________________

8 On August 17, 2018, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why Penwell’s 

appeal should not be quashed, pursuant to Walker. Penwell filed a timely 

Response, arguing that Walker, which involved an appeal from a single order 

disposing of separate suppression motions filed by four defendants at four 

separate docket numbers, see Walker, 185 A.3d at 971, is inapplicable to 

the instant case, which concerns only one defendant. Penwell also argued 

that Walker does not apply here because the probation revocation court 

imposed a sentence on all three trial court docket numbers during one

sentencing hearing. Finally, Penwell emphasized that the parties here entered 

into the above-mentioned Stipulation concerning “consolidation.” On August 

30, 2018, this Court issued an Order discharging the Rule to Show Cause, and 

referring the issue to the merits panel. Though we appreciate Penwell’s 

arguments, we conclude that her attempt to distinguish the circumstances of 

her case is unavailing, as neither Rule 341 nor Walker indicates that a 

different standard should apply when multiple docket numbers concern the 

same defendant. Nor is the Stipulation enough, in light of the bright-line, 

mandatory rule imposed by Walker. See M.P., 2019 PA Super 55, at **1-2

(stating that Walker is the law of the Commonwealth, and shall be applied 

prospectively and uniformly by this Court.”). Instead, as the certified record 

reflects that the probation revocation court imposed a separate sentence at 

each docket number, Penwell’s appeal clearly involves “one or more orders 

[which] resolves issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more 

than one judgment[,]” Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note, and thus fits squarely 

within the dictates of Walker. 

9 We note that the quashal of Penwell’s appeal is without prejudice to her

ability to file a petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 

seeking reinstatement of her direct appeal rights, nunc pro tunc.
J-S16036-19

- 6 -

185 A.3d at 977; M.P., supra;

10 Commonwealth v. Williams, 2019 PA 

Super 81 (Pa. Super. filed March 20, 2019) (quashing appeal where appellant 

filed a single notice of appeal containing multiple docket numbers on June 5, 

2018, just four days after the Walker decision).

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/31/2019

____________________________________________

10 In so holding, we emphasize, and agree with, the following rationale of the 

panel in M.P., concerning the proper role of the Superior Court in applying 

Walker: 

We recognize the harsh — perhaps draconian — consequence of 

quashing any appeal .... However, our role as an intermediate

appellate court is clear. “It is not the prerogative of an

intermediate appellate court to enunciate new precepts of law or

to expand existing legal doctrines. Such is a province reserved to

the Supreme Court.” Moses v. T.N.T. Red Star Exp., ... 725

A.2d 792, 801 (Pa. Super. 1999). It is well-settled that “the

Superior Court is an error correcting court and we are obliged to

apply the decisional law as determined by the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania.” Commonwealth v. Montini, 712 A.2d 761, 769

(Pa. Super. 1998).

M.P., 2019 PA Super 55, at *5 n.2.