J-S73023-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROBERT LEONARDO GEORGE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1171 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 19, 2019

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

No(s): CP-35-CR-0000286-2019, 

CP-35-CR-0000757-2019

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 31, 2020

Robert Leonardo George appeals from the judgment of sentence, 

imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, after he 

entered guilty pleas, at two different docket numbers, to various theft-related 

charges. Counsel also seeks to withdraw her representation pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Commonwealth v. 

McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), and their progeny. We quash.

The trial court briefly set forth the facts of this matter as follows:

On March 22, 2019, [George] pled guilty to one count of retail 

theft in case no. 19-CR-286. The charges arose on October 9, 

2018 when [George] stole electronics from the Walmart Store in 

Dickson City. On May 17, 2019, [George] pled guilty to one count 

of receiving stolen property, and one count of accessing a device 

issued to another who did not authorize its use in case no. 19-CR757. The charges in 19-CR-757 arose on November 12, 2018, 

when [George] broke into and unlawfully took property from a 
J-S73023-19

- 2 -

number of motor vehicles in Moosic, and used a stolen debit card 

taken from one of the cars at several locations.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/16/19, at 1-2.

On June 19, 2019, George was sentenced at both docket numbers to an 

aggregate term of 18 to 60 months’ incarceration. George filed a motion for 

reconsideration of sentence, which the court denied on July 10, 2019. George 

filed a timely notice of appeal on July 15, 2019, followed by a court-ordered 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b). On appeal, George challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. 

Before we may consider any substantive claims on appeal, however, we 

must first determine whether the notice of appeal was properly filed. Although 

he appeals from judgments of sentence entered at two different docket 

numbers, George filed only one notice of appeal, listing both docket numbers. 

Consequently, on August 19, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause for 

George to explain why we should not quash the appeal based on our Supreme 

Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 971 (Pa. 2018) 

(holding that “where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one 

docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each of those cases”). 

Counsel for George filed a response to the Rule, in which she conceded that 

George filed a single notice of appeal, distinguished the instant matter from 

Walker, and asserted that “[t]he mandates of judicial economy would be 

served if this [C]ourt considers the present appeal[.]” Response to Rule to 

Show Cause, 8/22/19, at ¶ 3.g. This Court discharged the rule to show cause 
J-S73023-19

- 3 -

and referred the matter to the merits panel. Thus, before addressing George’s 

substantive claim, we first must determine whether his notice of appeal 

complies with Pa.R.A.P. 341 and Walker. 

The Official Note to Rule 341(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

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 held that, pursuant to Rule 341, “where 

a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate 

notices of appeal must be filed for each case.” Walker, 185 A.3d at 971. Our 

Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he Official Note to Rule 341 provides a 

bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of 

appeal. . . . The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the 

appeal.” Id. at 976-77 (emphasis added). Our Supreme Court applied its 

holding prospectively to appeals filed after June 1, 2018, the date Walker

was decided.

Our review discloses that George filed one notice of appeal, on July 15, 

2019, listing both lower court docket numbers. The notice of appeal is 

contained only in the certified record for case no. 19-CR-286. Accordingly, 

George has failed to comply with Rule 341(a) and our Supreme Court’s 
J-S73023-19

- 4 -

decision in Walker. Consequently, we are constrained to quash the instant 

appeal.

Appeal quashed. Petition to withdraw as counsel denied as moot.1

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 01/31/2020

____________________________________________

1 Because we are not permitted to consider the substantive claims in this 

appeal pursuant to Walker, we are similarly unable to determine if George’s 

appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s petition to withdraw 

as moot.