J-S28030-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CARL GOULD : : Appellant : No. 1746 MDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0004022-2015 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CARL ERIC GOULD : : Appellant : No. 1747 MDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0005383-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CARL GOULD : : Appellant : No. 1748 MDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000402-2016 J-S28030-20

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CARL GOULD : : Appellant : No. 1749 MDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000403-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CARL GOULD : : Appellant : No. 1750 MDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 29, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001870-2016

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED AUGUST 13, 2020 Appellant, Carl Eric Gould, appeals pro se from the order entered August 29, 2019, which dismissed his petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

In August 2015, the Commonwealth criminally charged Appellant with numerous drug-related offenses. In the information docketed at CP-36-CR-0004022-2015 (“4022-2015”), the Commonwealth charged

-2- J-S28030-20

Appellant with two counts of possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”). In the information docketed at CP-36-CR-0005383-2015 (“5383-2015”), the Commonwealth charged Appellant with PWID (cocaine), possession of drug paraphernalia, and conspiracy.1 Following a bench trial, the court found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned crimes and sentenced him to an aggregate term of two and one-half to seven years' incarceration. This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on May 9, 2018 and our Supreme Court subsequently denied allocatur on October 2, 2018. Commonwealth v. Gould, 187 A.3d 927 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied 194 A.3d 1040 (Pa. 2018).

On May 9, 2019, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition and the PCRA court subsequently appointed counsel to represent Appellant in the proceedings. On July 24, 2019, however, court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a no-merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On July 31, 2019, the PCRA court issued notice that it intended to dismiss Appellant’s PCRA petition

____________________________________________

-3- J-S28030-20

in 20 days without holding a hearing. PCRA Court Order, 7/31/19, at 1; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Appellant filed a response to the Turner/Finley letter on August 15, 2019. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition and granted counsel leave to withdraw on August 29, 2019.2 PCRA Court’s Order, 8/29/19, at 1.

On October 1, 2019, Appellant filed a timely pro so notice of appeal to this Court.3 The notice of appeal contained multiple trial court docket ____________________________________________

3Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 903, a “notice of appeal. . . shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). This Court, however, previously recognized that: [t]he pro se prisoner's state of incarceration prohibits him from directly filing an appeal with the appellate court and prohibits any monitoring of the filing process. Therefore[,] . . . a pro se prisoner's appeal shall be deemed to be filed on the date that he delivers the appeal to prison authorities and/or places his notice of appeal in the institutional mailbox.

Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parallel citations omitted).

Herein, we conclude that Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition on August 29, 2019. Thus, to be considered timely, Appellant needed to file his notice of appeal by September

-4- J-S28030-20

numbers.4 On October 24, 2019, the PCRA ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). That order complied with all of the requirements set forth in Rule 1925(b)(3). Appellant, however, did not file a concise statement. As such, in the PCRA court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court declared that all of ____________________________________________

30, 2019. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. The trial court’s docket reflects that Appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal on October 1, 2019. Nonetheless, as Appellant is a pro se prisoner, he is entitled to the benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule. As such, we may accept “any reasonably verifiable evidence” that Appellant “deposit[ed] the appeal with the prison authorities” on or before September 30, 2019. Perez, 799 A.2d at 851. Appellant’s notice of appeal dated September 22, 2019 supports the conclusion that he timely deposited the notice with prison authorities. Accordingly, for purposes of this matter, we shall treat Appellant’s notice of appeal as timely filed.

Appellant did not file a response. On July 9, 2020, however, an en banc panel of this Court decided Commonwealth v. Johnson, 2020 WL 3869723 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc) concerning the proper application of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) in light of Commonwealth v. Creese, 216 A.3d 1142 (Pa. Super. 2019) (reading Walker as a mandate to quash appeal unless notice of appeal contains only one trial court docket number).

The Johnson Court explicitly overruled Creese, supra and held that as long as the appellant files a separate notice of appeal at each trial court docket, “[t]he fact that the notices [of appeal] contained [more than one trial court docket number] is of no consequence.” Id. at *11. Accordingly, we decline to quash the instant appeal.

-5- J-S28030-20

Appellant’s claims on appeal must be deemed waived. PCRA Court Opinion, 11/27/19, at 1.

We agree with the PCRA court and conclude that, since Appellant failed to comply with the PCRA court's order to file and serve a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, Appellant waived all of his claims on appeal.5 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues not included in the [Rule 1925(b) s]tatement ... are waived”); Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (“in order to preserve their claims for appellate review, appellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be waived.”) (internal citations, quotations, and corrections omitted) (some internal capitalization omitted).

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 08/13/2020 ____________________________________________

-6-