Court Opinion

ID: 9702383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:09:18.631336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:37.178618
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
BOWES, J.:
¶ 1 I believe that this appeal is untimely and should be quashed. At Appellant’s December 17, 2004 sentencing, he was informed:
You have ten days from today’s date to ask the Court to reconsider your sentence. That must be done in writing.
You have 30 days from today’s date to file an appeal to the Superior Court on the grounds that we discussed. That also must be done in writing.
N.T., 12/17/2004, at 83. Appellant’s post-trial motions were untimely filed on December 28, 2004. Therefore, the motions were not sufficient to toll the appeal period. Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122 (Pa.Super.2003) (en banc). Appellant had until Tuesday, January 18, 2004, to file his appeal.7 His February 2, 2005 appeal is untimely and should be quashed. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Wrecks, *5042007 PA Super 301, 934 A.2d 1287. The violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(4)(a) presented in this case had no impact on the untimeliness of the appeal. Appellant, who knew he had ten days to file post-trial motions, filed those motions in an untimely manner. Furthermore, he already had been informed that he had thirty days from the judgment of sentence to file the appeal. Hence, I believe that Dreves remains controlling, that we lack jurisdiction, and that this appeal should be quashed.

. The last day of the appeal period fell on a Sunday, and the following day was a legal holiday; therefore, Appellant had until that Tuesday to file the appeal. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908.