Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Walker, T.
185 A.3d 969
| Pa. | 2018Background
- Early morning vehicle stop following broadcast of a robbery; officer stopped a vehicle carrying four African American men and later discovered items allegedly from the robbery after detaining, impounding, and searching the vehicle.
- Four suspects (Appellees) were charged in four separate criminal dockets and each filed a separate suppression motion arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The trial court held a single suppression hearing and entered one written opinion and order (captioned with all four defendants and docket numbers) granting all four suppression motions.
- The Commonwealth filed one notice of appeal listing all four docket numbers and invoked Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (criminal interlocutory appeal by the Commonwealth).
- The Superior Court quashed the single notice of appeal, relying on the Official Note to Pa.R.A.P. 341 and precedent requiring separate notices when one order resolves issues arising on more than one docket.
- The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the Superior Court’s order (did not quash the appeal here), but held prospectively that when a single order resolves issues arising on multiple dockets separate notices of appeal must be filed; failure to do so will result in quashal.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Appellees' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single notice of appeal may challenge a single order that disposed of motions across multiple dockets | Single notice was proper because the suppression order contained identical findings and conclusions for all defendants, issues are the same, and quashal would foreclose review | A single notice is improper under Rule 341 Official Note; separate notices required where an order resolves issues on more than one docket | Court: Prospectively require separate notices when one order resolves issues arising on more than one docket; but did not quash in this instance and remanded for merits consideration |
| Whether the Superior Court should have applied the General Electric three-part test to retain the appeal | General Electric test applies and favors allowing the appeal (issues identical, appellees objected but not prejudiced, appeal period expired) | Reliance on Rule 341 Official Note and potential for different effects on each defendant justify separate appeals | Court: General Electric history acknowledged, but 2013 Official Note provides a bright-line rule requiring separate notices going forward; Superior Court’s reliance on the Note was correct though this particular appeal was not quashed |
| Whether Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (criminal interlocutory appeals) alters the multiple-appeal requirement | Rule 311(d) allows Commonwealth interlocutory appeals; separate-appeal rule should not differ from Rule 341(a) | Separate-appeal requirement applies equally; consolidation may improperly circumvent appellate court discretion | Court: Rule 311(d) does not exempt Commonwealth appeals from the Official Note’s requirement; separate notices required when order affects multiple dockets |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Clark, 191 A.2d 417 (Pa. 1963) (discouraging single appeal from multiple orders)
- Frailey Twp. Sch. Dist. v. Schuylkill Min. Co., 64 A.2d 788 (Pa. 1949) (single appeal cannot bring more than one final order but courts sometimes decide merits)
- General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 263 A.2d 448 (Pa. 1970) (three-part test for when a single appeal from multiple orders should be retained)
- K.H. v. J.R., 826 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2003) (application of General Electric factors; courts may entertain single appeal when issues closely related)
- C.M.K. v. Commonwealth, 932 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Superior Court quashed single appeal involving separate judgments/sentences; cited in Rule 341 Official Note)