Opinion
J-S08001-20 No. 1450 WDA 2018
03-30-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TAISHA LESETTE SANTIAGO Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 9, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0002661-2017 BEFORE: OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and MUSMANNO, J. DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:
I would conclude the trial court's mistaken and improper "grant" of Appellant's motion for extension of time to file an appeal was a breakdown in court operations pursuant to Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh , 770 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2000). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
The majority aptly summarizes that in Coolbaugh , this Court found a breakdown in court operations in the trial court's misstatement, at the sentencing hearing for a probation revocation, that the defendant had thirty days from the denial of any post-sentence motion to file an appeal. Coolbaugh , 770 A.2d at 791, citing Commonwealth v . Coleman , 721 A.2d 798 (Pa. Super. 1998) (filing of post-sentence motion, following revocation of probation, does not extend appeal period). The majority, however, distinguishes the procedural posture in Coolbaugh , emphasizing that here, the trial court's mistaken action was "granting" Appellant's petition to extend the appeal period. I would not construe Coolbaugh so strictly, and instead would conclude the "granting" of the petition fell under the ambit of a court's "misstatement of the appeal period." See Coolbaugh , 770 A.2d at 791. In purporting to "grant" Appellant's petition, the trial court necessarily conveyed, incorrectly, that the appeal period could be extended. See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Anwyll , 482 A.2d 656, 657 (Pa. Super. 1984) ("Given the trial court's misstatement of the appeal period, appellant's failure to appeal on time would appear to be the result of a breakdown in the court's operation."). Thus, I would not quash Appellant's appeal.