[J-36-2019] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 767 CAP : Appellee : Application for Reconsideration : : v. : : : PAUL GAMBOA TAYLOR, : SUBMITTED: March 11, 2019 : Appellant :

DISSENTING STATEMENT JUSTICE WECHT FILED: May 18, 2020 The four participating Justices are equally divided on Paul Gamboa Taylor’s application for reconsideration. Accordingly, by default, the application is denied by operation of law, having failed to garner a majority. See Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedures § 4(C)(2) (“A vote of the majority is required to grant reconsideration.”).

The denial is inexplicable, given that our decision in Commonwealth v. Koehler, 2020 WL 1973876 (Pa. April 24, 2020), dictates reconsideration of our prior decision in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 218 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2019), which affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas by operation of law, as the votes among the participating Justices were equally divided. In Koehler, a majority of this Court held that a post-conviction 1 court has the authority to grant a new appeal to this Court if warranted, and that this Court could decide this dispositive issue. These are the same issues that ended in a deadlock in

1 See Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46.

Taylor. Plainly and unavoidably, Koehler establishes that the lower court in Taylor was legally incorrect in holding that it lacked the authority to grant a new appeal to this Court if warranted.

The default denial of Taylor’s application by virtue of today’s deadlock violates precedent and disregards binding law. I dissent.

Justice Donohue joins this dissenting statement.

[J-36-2019, 767 CAP] - 2