Com. v. Walker, T.
2299 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Four codefendants (Walker, Wallace, James, Towner) were charged in separate dockets for offenses arising from an October 26, 2014 armed robbery.
- Each appellee filed an individual suppression motion; a consolidated suppression hearing was held on March 20, 2015.
- The suppression court granted suppression for all four by a single order dated June 30, 2015.
- The Commonwealth filed one joint notice of appeal challenging the suppression order on July 27, 2015, and later filed a Rule 1925(b) statement.
- This Court issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed because the Commonwealth did not file separate appeals for each docket; the matter was deferred to argument panel.
- The Superior Court quashed the appeal, holding the Commonwealth was required to file separate notices of appeal for each separately docketed defendant and declining to reach the suppression merits.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Appellees' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be quashed because the Commonwealth filed a single notice of appeal for multiple separately docketed defendants | A single joint notice should be permitted; the Court may sua sponte consolidate appeals under Pa.R.A.P. 512/513 for judicial economy; the suppression order and caption were identical across dockets | Rule 341 and controlling precedent require separate notices of appeal when an order resolves issues on more than one docket; single notice is inadequate | Quashed: Commonwealth required to file separate appeals for each docket; Court refused to create appeals sua sponte |
| Whether suppression was erroneously granted (merits) | Suppression was incorrect because police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on totality of circumstances | Suppression appropriate | Not reached (appeal quashed) |
Key Cases Cited
- C.M.K. v. Commonwealth, 932 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. 2007) (joint notice of appeal by codefendants from separate dockets is a legal nullity; appeal must be quashed)
- Commonwealth v. Henry, 943 A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 2008) (scope of review for suppression orders: factual findings binding if supported; legal conclusions reviewed plenarily)