Com. v. Luptak, R. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A23039-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT E. LUPTAK, JR., Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 402 WDA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 28, 2019 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-37-CR-0000512-2015, CP-37-CR-0000902-2015, CP-37-CR-0001073-2014, CP-37-CR-0001075-2014 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 Robert E. Luptak, Jr. (“Luptak”), appeals from the judgments of sentence entered at four docket numbers, following his convictions of multiple counts of possession of controlled substances, possession with intent to deliver controlled substances, and theft by receiving stolen property.1 We quash the appeal. In April 2017, a jury convicted Luptak of multiple counts of the abovedescribed charges. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Luptak to an aggregate prison term of 11½ to 23 years, with a credit for 212 days of time served, and the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive minimum sentence being ____________________________________________ 1 See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a). J-A23039-19 9 years and 7 months. Luptak filed post-sentence Motions, which the trial court denied. No appeal followed. Subsequently, Luptak timely filed a Petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).2 The PCRA court granted Luptak’s Petition, and reinstated his direct appeal rights, nunc pro tunc. Thereafter, Luptak filed a single Notice of Appeal of his judgments of sentence entered at the four separate docket numbers, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal. In Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. filed June 1, 2018), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that, “where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case.” Id. at 971; see also id. at 977 (applying the Supreme Court’s holding prospectively). Because Luptak filed his appeal after the Supreme Court had decided Walker, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why the appeal should not be quashed pursuant to Walker. In response, Luptak filed a Petition for Remand, to allow him to file additional notices of appeal. By an Order entered on April 16, 2019, this Court deferred the Petition, for consideration by the merits panel. Order, 4/16/19. ____________________________________________ 2 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. -2- J-A23039-19 On June 24, 2019, Luptak filed a Stipulation whereby the Commonwealth and Luptak stipulated to the consolidation of the appeals under a single docket number. Stipulation, 6/24/19. However, as there is only one appeal pending before this Court, there is nothing to consolidate. Further, this Stipulation is not sufficient to negate the bright-line, mandatory rule imposed by Walker. It is undisputed that Luptak filed a single Notice of Appeal from the sentences entered at multiple docket numbers. Because Luptak filed his Notice of Appeal after our Supreme Court’s decision in Walker, we are required to quash the appeal, without prejudice to Lowry’s right to seek relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).3 See Commonwealth v. Williams, 206 A.3d 573, 576 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quashing a non-compliant notice of appeal filed after Walker). Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 9/13/2019 ____________________________________________ 3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. -3-
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.
