Com. v. Williams, A. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S01009-20 J-S01010-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ATWOOD WILLIAMS Appellant : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : No. 224 EDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 11, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0824001-1993, CP-51-CR-0824211-1993 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ATWOOD WILLIAMS Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 225 EDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 11, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0824001-1993, CP-51-CR-0824211-1993 BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 12, 2020 Atwood Williams appeals from the order that dismissed his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) in both of the abovecaptioned cases. The notice of appeal for each case includes both docket ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S01009-20 J-S01010-19 numbers, which a three-judge panel of this Court had determined was a violation of our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding that appellants are required to file separate notices of appeal at each docket number implicated by an order resolving issues that involve more than one trial court docket). See Commonwealth v. Creese, 216 A.3d 1142, 1143 (Pa.Super. 2019). However, on July 9, 2020, this Court sitting en banc held that, where an appellant files notices of appeal separately at each implicated docket number, the mandates of Walker have been satisfied regardless of the inclusion of additional docket numbers on each notice. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, ___ A.3d ___, 2020 PA Super 164 (Pa.Super. July 9, 2020) (en banc). The record before us indicates that the instant appeals comply with Walker as interpreted by Johnson. Appellant did in fact separately file two notices of appeal, one at each case’s docket. See Appellant’s Response to Rule to Show Cause, 9/16/19, at ¶ 4 (explaining that the notice of appeal was separately docketed for each case number and that the notices bear different time stamps). Accordingly, the number of docket numbers listed on the notices of appeal provide no basis to quash these appeals, which we instead hereby consolidate pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513. The PCRA court in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion relied upon the alleged Walker violation and offered no analysis of the issue Appellant identified in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See PCRA Court Opinion, 4/17/19, at 3. -2- J-S01009-20 J-S01010-19 Since we have determined that we have jurisdiction to reach the merits of this appeal, we remand to the PCRA court for the preparation of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion explaining the reasons for its ruling within sixty days of the date of this order. Thereafter, our Prothonotary shall issue a new briefing schedule to allow the parties to address the PCRA court’s opinion. Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/12/2020 -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.
