Com. v. Creese, L., Sr.
216 A.3d 1142
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Appellant Lawrence E. Creese, Sr. filed PCRA petitions in four consolidated York County dockets; the PCRA court denied relief on December 18, 2018.
- On December 20, 2018, Creese filed notices of appeal; four identical photocopies of a single notice listing all four docket numbers appear on the trial-court and Superior Court dockets.
- The Superior Court issued a rule to show cause under Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), because Walker requires separate notices of appeal when one order resolves issues on multiple dockets.
- Creese admitted counsel filed a single notice (copied into each file) and conceded unawareness of Walker; he argued no prejudice resulted from the procedural defect.
- The Superior Court concluded Walker applies prospectively to appeals filed after June 1, 2018, and held that a notice of appeal may contain only one docket number; because the notices here listed multiple docket numbers, the Court quashed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single notice listing multiple docket numbers suffices where one order resolves multiple dockets | Creese: the timely notice was filed and no party was prejudiced by the technical defect | Commonwealth: compliance with Rule 341/Walker required separate notices for each docket | Court: Walker mandates separate notices for each docket for appeals filed after June 1, 2018; appeal quashed |
| Whether clerical copying of one notice into multiple records cures Walker noncompliance | Creese: implicit argument that filing copies in each docket should be adequate | Court/Respondent: ministerial clerk action cannot cure failure to file separate notices | Held: clerical duplication does not satisfy Walker or Rule 341; quash required |
| Whether Walker applies prospectively only and therefore governs this appeal | Creese: did not contest applicability after conceding ignorance; argued fairness | Court: Walker applies to appeals filed after June 1, 2018; it controls here | Held: Walker applies and controls; separate notices required |
| Whether exceptions should be made to avoid harsh results when no prejudice shown | Creese: sought relief from technical quashal due to lack of prejudice | Court: declined to create exceptions to preserve bright-line rule and uniformity | Held: no exception; strict application and quashal enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holds that when a single order resolves issues on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 206 A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2019) (applies Walker and reiterates requirement for separate notices)
- Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discusses Rule 341 Official Note requirement for separate notices when multiple dockets are involved)
- In the Interest of P.S., 158 A.3d 643 (Pa. Super. 2017) (noting prior common practice of accepting nonconforming notices where issues were identical and no objection was raised)
- In re Administrative Order, 936 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2007) (explains prothonotary's role is ministerial and cannot substitute for counsel's filing duties)