Com. v. Anwyll
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
| Citation | 333 Pa.Super. 453,482 A.2d 656 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Scott R. ANWYLL, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 28 September 1984 |
Page 656
v.
Scott R. ANWYLL, Appellant.
Filed Sept. 28, 1984.
[333 Pa.Super. 454] Thomas W. Houser, Bethlehem, for appellant.
Daniel G. Spengler, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bethlehem, for Commonwealth, appellee.
[333 Pa.Super. 455] Before SPAETH, President Judge, and WIEAND and CIRILLO, JJ.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from judgment of sentence following appellant's plea of guilty to three counts of forgery. We affirm.
Before we consider the merits, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Appellant was sentenced on April 5, 1983, and did not file his notice of appeal until May 9, 1983. The appeal therefore appears untimely, Pa.R.A.P. 903(a), and although no party has raised the issue of timeliness, we may do so sua sponte. Commonwealth v. Fisher, 321 Pa.Super. 534, 468 A.2d 1117 (1983).
At the time of sentencing the trial court stated:
You have a right to file a petition within ten days from today to review this sentencing proceeding to determine whether the sentence is beyond the maximum penalty authorized by law and whether the sentence is proper under the Sentencing Guidelines the court is required to
Page 657
follow. If your petition to review this sentence is denied, you then have thirty days to file an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. That appeal must be filed within thirty days from today or within thirty days after your petition to review the sentence has been disposed of.N.T. Sentencing at 11.
This statement was erroneous since a petition for reconsideration does not extend the time for taking an appeal. See, Commonwealth v. Jones, 307 Pa.Super. 558, 453 A.2d 1028 (1982).
Appellant did timely file a petition for reconsideration of sentence, and on April 26, 1983, the court entered an order denying it. On May 9, 1983, i.e., within thirty days of the denial of the petition for reconsideration but not within thirty days of the sentence, appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The notice stated that it was from the [333 Pa.Super. 456] trial court's order of April 26th denying the petition for reconsideration.
This appeal was out of time. When an Act of Assembly fixes the time within which an appeal may be taken, a court may not extend time for appeal. Commonwealth v. Englert, 311 Pa.Super. 78, 457 A.2d 121 (1983). The mere fact that the trial court purported to extend the time for appeal to thirty days after the disposition of the motion for reconsideration under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 did not affect the running of the time for appeal. Commonwealth v. Leonard, 308 Pa.Super. 292, 454 A.2d 136 (1982). The best practice, when granting a petition for reconsideration, is to vacate the sentence in question, Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410, Comments, but the court did not do that.
Nevertheless, we will not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Green
...from which the appeal is taken"). We are therefore, constrained to quash Appellant's appeal as untimely. SeeCommonwealth v. Anwyll, 333 Pa.Super. 453, 482 A.2d 656, 657 (1984) (it is well established that when an Act of Assembly fixes the time within which an appeal may be taken, a court ma......
-
Com. v. Khalil
...otherwise untimely appeal if fraud or breakdown in the trial court's processes resulted in an untimely appeal. Commonwealth v. Anwyll, 333 Pa.Super. 453, 482 A.2d 656 ¶ 8 At the outset, we note that it is well-settled law that the appellate courts cannot generally extend the time for filing......
-
Commonwealth v. Moir
...in the machinery of the courts since the trial court mislead the parties as to appellant's right to appeal. Commonwealth v. Anwyll, 333 Pa.Super. 453, 482 A.2d 656 8. While not binding on this court, the Commonwealth Court has found that "[o]ur case law has not established that an effective......
-
Commonwealth v. Clementi, 1381 C.D. 2019
...nunc pro tunc relief where a common pleas court failed to inform a party of the proper appeal period); Commonwealth v. Anwyll , 333 Pa.Super. 453, 482 A.2d 656, 657 (1984) (finding an administrative breakdown justifying nunc pro tunc relief where a common pleas court misstated the appeal pe......
-
Com. v. Green
...from which the appeal is taken"). We are therefore, constrained to quash Appellant's appeal as untimely. SeeCommonwealth v. Anwyll, 333 Pa.Super. 453, 482 A.2d 656, 657 (1984) (it is well established that when an Act of Assembly fixes the time within which an appeal may be taken, a court ma......
-
Com. v. Khalil
...otherwise untimely appeal if fraud or breakdown in the trial court's processes resulted in an untimely appeal. Commonwealth v. Anwyll, 333 Pa.Super. 453, 482 A.2d 656 ¶ 8 At the outset, we note that it is well-settled law that the appellate courts cannot generally extend the time for filing......
-
Commonwealth v. Moir
...in the machinery of the courts since the trial court mislead the parties as to appellant's right to appeal. Commonwealth v. Anwyll, 333 Pa.Super. 453, 482 A.2d 656 8. While not binding on this court, the Commonwealth Court has found that "[o]ur case law has not established that an effective......
-
Com. v. Coolbaugh
...an Act of Assembly fixes the time within which an appeal may be taken, a court may not extend time for appeal." Commonwealth v. Anwyll, 333 Pa.Super. 453, 482 A.2d 656, 657 (1984). Therefore, when a trial court purports to extend the time for appeal to thirty days after the disposition of t......