Com. v. Goldberg, E. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S42016-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ERIC ANTHONY GOLDBERG Appellant No. 1390 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Dated June 27, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0015060-2012 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY JENKINS, J.: FILED JULY 22, 2014 the court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on June 27, 2013. Because we lack jurisdiction to entertain his appeal, we quash. On June 25, 2013, Goldberg attempted to enter a counseled, negotiated guilty plea. Because Goldberg indicated he did not fully understand the terms of the plea and his post-sentencing rights, the trial court did not accept the plea and ordered a drug test. See was not under the influence of drugs, the plea proceedings were rescheduled. On June 27, 2013, the parties reconvened and Goldberg entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count each of simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, criminal mischief and careless J-S42016-14 driving.1 That same day, the trial court sentenced Goldberg in open court to five years of probation with the conditions that he undergo random drug screens, a mental health evaluation and a drug and alcohol evaluation, complete anger management classes, and refrain from any violent contact Notes of 2 The Department of Court Records entered the judgment of sentence on the docket the same day. Goldberg did not file post-trial motions. On July 31, 2013, Goldberg filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 903(a) requires that a cases, if no post-sentence motions ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2701(a)(1), 2705, 3304(a)(2); 75 Pa.C.S. 3714(a), respectively. We note that the Commonwealth originally charged Goldberg with one count each of aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, criminal mischief, reckless driving, careless driving, stalking, harassment, and front windshield obstruction. In exchange Commonwealth withdrew the remaining counts. 2 The order imposing the judgment of sentence was filed the same day. -2- J-S42016-14 The question of timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional. Commonwealth v. Moir Court is without jurisdiction to excuse a failure to file a timely notice, as the 30- Valley Forge Ctr. Associates v. Rib-lt/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245 (Pa.Super.1997) (citing In re Greist, 636 A.2d 193, 195 (1994)). See also Commonwealth v. Riebow, 445 A.2d Valley Forge, 693 A.2d at 245. of sentence. He did not file any post-sentence motions. Accordingly, because the trial court Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 903(c)(3) required him to file his Notice of Appeal by July 29, 2013. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(c)(3).3 Goldberg filed his Notice of Appeal on July 31, 2013, two days late. ____________________________________________ 3 For purposes of calculating the last day on which a Notice of Appeal must be filed, the computation of time requires omission of the last day of a time period which falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. See Note to Pa.R.A.P. 903; Pa.R.A.P. 107 (incorporating by reference the Pennsylvania rules of construction); 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (relating to computation of time for Notice of Appeal fell on July 27, 2013, which was a Saturday. The adjusted last day became Monday, July 29, 2013, the next business day. -3- J-S42016-14 On July 29, 2013, he was not incarcerated and thus had the ability to personally travel to the courthouse to ensure his Notice of Appeal was timely filed.4 Because Goldberg did not file a timely appeal from the June 27, 2013 order, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See Moir, 766 A.2d at 1254-55. See also Bronson v. Kerestes, 40 A.3d Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/22/2014 ____________________________________________ 4 Compare Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 425 (Pa.1997) (providing appellants who are incarcerated may avail themselves of the prisoner mailbox rule). -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
