Gorham, In re

Decision Date30 November 1979
Citation414 A.2d 712,272 Pa.Super. 145
PartiesIn re Gary GORHAM. Appeal of Vivian GORHAM.
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Deborah Harris, Philadelphia, for appellant.

David Mullins, Philadelphia, for Child Advocate, appellee.

Mary Rose Cunningham, Asst. City Sol., Philadelphia, for City of Philadelphia, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, WIEAND and LIPEZ, JJ.

LIPEZ, Judge:

We find that this appeal from a dispositional order in a deprived child proceeding under the Juvenile Act 1 was untimely, and must be quashed. The record shows that the court below temporarily transferred custody of appellant's son to appellant's older daughter on October 13, 1977. On January 5, 1978 a hearing was held at which appellant, represented by her attorney, was given the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine the Commonwealth's witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the trial judge informed appellant's attorney that he was making the temporary custody order final. A final order transferring custody was entered by the court below on its docket that day.

On February 8, 1978 appellant both filed in the court below and caused to be docketed in this court a notice of appeal from the order of January 5, 1978. 2 The notice of appeal was untimely if it was not filed in the lower court within 30 days of the entry of the order appealed from. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). We must determine the date of entry under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 108(a), 3 which states:

"General rule. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, in computing any period of time under these rules involving the date of entry of an order by a court or other government unit, the day of entry shall be the day the clerk of the court or the office of the government unit mails or delivers copies of the order to the parties, or if such delivery is not otherwise required by law, the day the clerk or office of the government unit makes such copies public. The day of entry of an order may be the day of its adoption by the court or other government unit, or any subsequent day, as required by the actual circumstances."

As in Commonwealth v. Dorman, --- Pa.Super. ---, ---, 414 A.2d 713, (1979), we have no way of determining from the record before us any of the three possibilities date of mailing copies of the order, date of delivery of copies, and date of making copies public provided for in the first sentence of Rule 108(a). We therefore determine date of entry "as otherwise provided in this rule," i. e., by the second sentence of Rule 108(a) ("The day of entry of an order may be the day of its adoption by the court or other government unit, or any subsequent day, as required by the actual circumstances."). We hold that the date of entry of the order in this case was January 5, 1978. On that day, the lower court both informed appellant's attorney that the temporary custody order was made final, and also entered that final order on its docket, making it appealable from that date. Pa.R.A.P. 301(a). See Commonwealth v. Dorman, supra.

Since the date of entry of the order was January 5, 1978, appellant's notice of appeal filed 34 days later on February 8, 1978 was untimely. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Timely filing of the notice of appeal is essential to the validity of the appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 902. An appellate court may not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 105(b).

Appeal quashed.

1 Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1464, No. 333, § 1 et seq., 11 P.S. § 50-101 et seq. (Supp.1978-79), effective February 4, 1973, superseded by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq., effective June 27, 1978.

2 The original copy of the notice of appeal filed in the lower court stated that appellant "hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Orders entered in this matter on January 5, 1978, November 21, 1977, October 13, 1977 and June 1, 1976." On the copy which appellant transmitted to this court for docketing, Pa.R.A.P. 907(a) (version before Last Minute Amendment, effective September 30, 1979, 9 Pa.Bull. 1740, 1742), references to orders other than that of January 5, 1978, were deleted. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 902 provides in pertinent part: "Failure of an appellant to take any step...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Com. v. Brant
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • June 18, 1980
  • Griffin, In re
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • February 19, 1997
    ...does not apply in Juvenile Court proceedings, which are governed entirely by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq. See In re Gorham, 272 Pa.Super. 145, 148, 414 A.2d 712, 713 (1979) ("[A] juvenile proceeding is not 'a matter subject to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure'."); and Commonwealth v. ......
  • Bond v. Fulcomer
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 3, 1989
    ...late. Although the general rule indicates that an appellate court may not enlarge time for filing a notice of appeal, In re Gorham, 272 Pa.Super. 145, 414 A.2d 712 (1979); 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 5504 (Purdon 1978), an appeal nunc pro tunc is occasionally allowed when the appellant establ......
  • Robinson v. Trenton Dressed Poultry Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • August 9, 1985
    ...appeal from the May 5, 1983 Order must be quashed. Cameron v. Escofil, 321 Pa.Super. 347, 468 A.2d 513 (1983); In re Gorham, 272 Pa.Super. 145, 414 A.2d 712 (1979). Robinson's appeal from the May 5, 1983 Order having been quashed, we turn our attention to the legal effect of that order, whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT