J-S18037-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MIGUEL ANTHONY RIVERA : : Appellant : No. 1324 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 13, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0004576-2007, CP-36-CR-0005898-2005

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: MAY 3, 2019 Appellant, Miguel Anthony Rivera, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County following the revocation of his probation. Specifically, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. After careful review, we quash the present appeal.

The trial court aptly summarizes the pertinent case history: On November 27, 2007, Defendant [hereinafter “Appellant”] pled guilty at docket number 5898-2005 to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a person less than sixteen years of age, three counts of indecent assault of a person less than sixteen years of age, three counts of aggravated assault of a person less than sixteen years of age, two counts of statutory sexual assault, and two counts of corruption of minors. He was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of five to ten years of incarceration and a consecutive five years of probation.

____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-S18037-19

That same day, Appellant pled guilty at docket number 4576-2007 to indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age and was sentenced to five years of probation to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed at docket number 5898-2005.1 Appellant was paroled three times, beginning as early as November 2014. In June 2015, his parole was revoked for having contact with minors. Parole was again revoked in December 2015 for failing to report for supervision. In September 2016, Appellant again was found to have violated his parole for failing to report for supervision. His prison term subsequently maxed out and his consecutive five years of probation began on July 26, 2017.

On or about March 9, 2018, a capias was issued alleging Appellant violated his probation. On May 1, 2018, [the trial court] found Appellant in violation for having contact with a minor, changing his residence without permission, and using cocaine. Following the preparation and receipt of a presentence investigation report (PSI), Appellant’s probation was revoked on July 13, 2018 and he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of one to five years of incarceration in a State Correctional Institution.

Appellant filed a motion to modify his sentence on July 19, 2018 and a notice of appeal on August 10, 2018. Appellant claims his sentence is manifestly excessive and unreasonable and that [the trial court] erred by imposing sex offender conditions.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/5/18, at 1-3.

In his appellate brief, Appellant raises one issue: Was the trial court’s sentence of one (1) to five (5) years of incarceration manifestly excessive under the circumstances and an abuse of the court’s discretion?

Appellant’s brief, at 4.

Before we may consider the issue identified in Appellant’s brief, we must first address whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See ____________________________________________

7/13/18, at 10 (recounting Appellant’s sentencing hearing of 2008).

-2- J-S18037-19

Commonwealth v. Borrero, 692 A.2d 158, 159 (Pa.Super. 1997) (permitting appellate court to sua sponte examine its jurisdiction). On August 10, 2018, Appellant, acting through the Office of the Public Defender, filed one notice of appeal containing two criminal docket numbers. Prior to that date, however, our Supreme Court handed down its decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) proscribing the practice of filing one notice of appeal containing multiple docket numbers.

Specifically, on June 1, 2018, Walker announced: in future cases[, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure] 341(a) will, in accordance with its Official Note, require that when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal. Id. at 977 (emphasis added).2 This Court has since applied Walker to quash an appeal where the appellant’s pro se notice of appeal contained multiple ____________________________________________

Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.

-3- J-S18037-19

docket numbers. See Commonwealth v. Williams, --- A.3d ----, 2019 Pa.Super. 81 *2 (filed March 20, 2019) (quashing non-compliant notice of appeal filed after Walker decision).

In the case sub judice, it is undisputed that Appellant filed one notice of appeal containing two docket numbers notwithstanding the prior admonition of the Walker decision.3 In light of this record, we are compelled to quash the present appeal as non-compliant with Walker.

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/3/2019

____________________________________________

-4-