Com. v. Johnson, J.
236 A.3d 1141
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Jerome Johnson was convicted after a consolidated jury trial on four dockets of second-degree murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and related offenses arising from two robberies on consecutive nights (Jan. 26–27, 2014).
- The first incident: robbery at New Diamond Chinese Store; during flight Kyleaf Gordon was shot and later died; Johnson and two co-defendants (Cassel and Lamback) were implicated as a common plan to rob drug dealers.
- The second incident: robbery of Derek Fernandes the next night; police pursued and shot Johnson after he pointed a gun at officers; proceeds and other overlapping evidence linked the two nights (same car, firearms, recovered jacket, ballistic evidence).
- Post-conviction, Johnson filed four separate notices of appeal (one per docket) but each notice listed all four lower-court docket numbers and italicized the single relevant number on each notice.
- This court considered (en banc) whether listing multiple docket numbers on otherwise separate notices violates Pa.R.A.P. 341 and Walker, and whether that error requires quashal; the court held Johnson’s appeals were properly perfected and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether including multiple docket numbers on each notice violates Pa.R.A.P. 341/Walker and mandates quashal | Walker requires separate notices per docket; Creese construed Walker to forbid any notice listing multiple docket numbers, so quashal is required where rule not followed | Johnson filed four separate notices and indicated (italicized) the relevant docket on each; Rule 341/Walker require separate notices but do not forbid listing other docket numbers; quashal unnecessary | En banc: Notices were separate and sufficient; listing multiple numbers on each notice does not invalidate them; Creese’s one-number-per-notice rule is overruled insofar as it adds a requirement not in Walker or Rule 341; appeals not quashed |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by consolidating the dockets for trial | Consolidation was warranted: same three men, same vehicle, same firearms, same criminal purpose across two nights; overlapping evidence admissible to prove identity, common scheme, intent, res gestae | Consolidation prejudiced Johnson because incidents were separate in time/place and evidence from one would be inadmissible in the other | Consolidation upheld: trial court did not abuse discretion; joinder proper under Pa.R.Crim.P. 582 and evidence was admissible for non-propensity purposes |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree murder (killing during felony) | Evidence established robbery conspiracy; co-conspirator fired while fleeing the robbery, causing death; malice inferable from dangerous felony conduct | The murder was independent of the robbery; co-defendant acted in self-defense and Johnson should not be liable for second-degree murder | Sufficiency affirmed: viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, jury could find continuous felony/conspiracy and malice; self-defense rejected by jury; conviction stands |
| Whether appellant preserved and argued a weight-of-the-evidence claim | Commonwealth contended appellant failed to develop the weight argument on appeal | Johnson raised weight in post-verdict motions but did not develop argument on appeal | Weight claim waived for inadequate briefing; court addressed only sufficiency on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requires separate notices of appeal where one or more orders resolve issues arising on more than one docket; failure to file separate notices requires quashal prospectively)
- Commonwealth v. Creese, 216 A.3d 1142 (Pa. Super. 2019) (interpreted Walker to require that each notice contain only one docket number; panel decision subsequently limited/overruled insofar as it imposed an extra requirement)
- Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quashed joint appeal filed by multiple defendants from separate judgments; discussed problems with joint appeals by codefendants)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 527 (Pa. 2012) (placing burden on Commonwealth to prove a killing was not in self-defense)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 546 A.2d 596 (Pa. 1988) (policy favoring joinder/consolidation when judicial economy and admissibility justify it)