Commonwealth v. Williams
206 A.3d 573
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Kenneth Williams was convicted in multiple Philadelphia criminal dockets in January 2012 of robbery, criminal conspiracy, and PIC; sentences were imposed after reconsideration in September 2012.
- Williams filed a direct appeal that was dismissed for a procedural defect; he later obtained reinstatement of appellate rights nunc pro tunc and the Superior Court affirmed his convictions in October 2015; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Williams filed a first PCRA petition (amended by counsel) that resulted in restoration of appellate rights; he filed a second pro se PCRA petition on August 4, 2017.
- Court-appointed PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and sought to withdraw; the PCRA court denied relief and permitted counsel to withdraw on May 11, 2018.
- Williams filed one pro se notice of appeal that listed four separate docket numbers; the notice was time-stamped June 5, 2018 (postmarked June 5, 2018), after Commonwealth v. Walker was decided on June 1, 2018.
- The Superior Court quashed the appeal because, under Walker and Pa.R.A.P. 341, separate notices of appeal must be filed when a single order resolves issues on more than one docket; Williams’ claim that he mailed the notice earlier (prisoner-mailbox rule) lacked record support.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Commonwealth/Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single notice of appeal listing multiple docket numbers is sufficient after Walker | Williams maintained his notice was timely and effective (and invoked the prisoner-mailbox rule to assert an earlier mailing) | Walker requires separate notices of appeal when one order resolves issues on multiple dockets; failure to file separate notices mandates quashal | Appeal quashed for noncompliance with Pa.R.A.P. 341 as interpreted in Walker |
| Whether the prisoner-mailbox rule renders Williams’ notice filed before Walker | Williams asserted he mailed the notice May 29, 2018, so it would have been filed before Walker | Record showed time-stamp/postmark of June 5, 2018 and no evidence of May 29 mailing | Court rejected Williams’ mailbox rule claim for lack of record support |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (when one order resolves issues on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal are required; failure to do so mandates quashal)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner-mailbox rule: pro se prisoner’s filing is deemed filed when deposited with prison authorities for mailing)
- Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. 2007) (single notice of appeal from orders affecting multiple dockets is improper practice)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal in post-conviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (standards for court-appointed counsel filing no-merit letter and seeking to withdraw)