Opinion ID: 2345288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: if relief is granted on the stewart conviction, [appellant] would also be entitled to relief from the watson conviction.

Text: Appellant contends that if he is granted a new trial on any of the grounds he has raised in this appeal, this Court should sua sponte grant him a new trial in the Watson case as well. As we conclude, infra, that the PCRA court properly denied relief, we need not discuss this contention. Appellant also asserts that there were several procedural irregularities in the Watson matter including the severance of it at the appeal and post-conviction collateral relief stages from the Stewart matter that warrant the grant of such relief. The Stewart matter was properly severed for purposes of appeal from the Watson appeal insofar as this Court has exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from a sentence of death. 42 Pa.C.S ง 722(4). Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 702(b) provides that this Court has jurisdiction in death penalty cases over judgments of sentences imposed on an appellant on lesser offenses so long as the lesser offenses arose out of the same criminal episode. Since the murders herein did not arise out of the same criminal episode, Appellant's claim that the cases should not have been severed fails.