JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: Michael Holley appeals of sentence, entered Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following conviction arson after to suppress the evidence of his identification show -up. Upon review, we quash the appeal. salient facts matter are as follows. A fire shooting

occurred the early morning at 1534 Foulkrod Street, Philadelphia An eyewitness observed man scene gave physical clothing descriptions, including man wearing pink shirt black pants. A officer stopped Holley because he matched the descriptions provided the eyewitness. officer detained * Former Justice specially assigned the Superior Court. and conducted a "show -up" for identification purposes. Holley also

admitted to being scene. trial court noted that

[Holley] arrested charged with multiple counts of [a]ttempted [m]urder, [a]ggravated [a]ssault, [p]ossession of [i]nstrument of [c]rime [a]rson other related (PIC), offenses. At his hearing on November 4, 2014, [Holley] brought a to suppress his stop, his identification, and all evidence recovered[.] . . After hearing the evidence presented, Judge . [Holley] [Robert P.] Coleman denied the motion. then proceeded to a jury began on [April 3, 2014]. [T]he jury found [Holley] guilty of the [aforementioned] offenses. On [Holley] proceeded to sentencing before this [court,] where he sentenced to nine[ -]and[ -]a[ -]half to nineteen years['] incarceration [for a]ttempted [m]urder, two[ - ]and[ -]a[ -]half to five years['] incarceration [for] PIC, and eight[ -]and[ -]a[ -]half to seventeen years['] [for a]rson, all other related offenses merged. sentences were all to run consecutive[ly] for total sentence of twenty[ -]and[ -]a[ -]half to forty-one years['] incarceration. [Holley's] [m]otion [r]econsideration of sentence was denied by [c]ourt 2014. [Holley] [] of the [c]ourt's decision on January On 2015, this [c]ourt ordered [Holley] to concise statement of the matters complained of on appeal pursuant [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b). After several motions requesting an extension time, [Holley] finally 1925(b) [s]tatement with [c]ourt May [Holley] argues that [m]otion [s]uppress should not have by Judge Coleman [c]ourt gave him excessive charges PIC [a]rson. at 1-2. On appeal, Holley limits the presented our review whether "the lower court err[ed] holding had lawfully seized [Holley] prior show -up identification from alleged eyewitness?" Appellant's Brief, at 4. Before we reach merits of the issue Holley presents, however, we first must address whether we have jurisdiction Instantly, Holley filed untimely notice of appeal, consider appeal. raises jurisdictional we may consider sua sponte. Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 791 (Pa. Super. 2001).

Holley's entered 2014, giving him until December timely notice of appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 903 (appellant has 30 -day period to file notice of appeal this Court from final order). did not file notice of appeal until January We note the filing of for reconsideration does not toll 30 -day period unless court expressly grants reconsideration, which it did not do matter. See Coolbaugh, supra at 791. It is inconsequential whether believed that 30 -day period file the notice of appeal began to run from entry of the order denying the motion for reconsideration. See (stating that "[Holley] timely appeal") (emphasis added)). Moreover, Holley's notice nevertheless would have untimely, since days 2014, fell 2015. Thus, for foregoing reasons, Holley's notice of appeal untimely we are without jurisdiction consider appeal. Coolbaugh, supra; Pa.R.A.P.

Appeal quashed. Application Remand denied.

FITZGERALD, J., Did not participate.

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

,etJ./CP

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/6/2017