September 18, 2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
LARRY MITCHELL LUCAS, JR. APPEAL OF: PAUL WEACHTER
Appeal from the Order Entered December 31 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-28-CR-0001354-2010.
PER CURIAM. [*]
Appellant, Paul Weachter, purports to appeal from the December 31, 2012 order granting the Commonwealth's request for bail forfeiture. Because we determine that this is an order which is interlocutory and not ripe for appellate review, we are without jurisdiction to hear the case and we therefore quash this appeal.
The order in the instant case provides,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the bail agent, [Appellant], shall forfeit the bail in this case in the amount of $25, 000.00, 180 days from the date of this order in the event the defendant [Larry Mitchell Lucas, Jr.] has not been brought before [the trial court] for a bench warrant hearing to answer for his failure to appear for required court appearances within that time.
Trial Court Order, 12/31/2012 (emphasis added). This order, which was expressly conditioned upon the apprehension of Lucas, provided Appellant with a 180-day window in which to bring Lucas before the court and, thus, avoid forfeiture.
"We do not have jurisdiction over a case if the order before us is not appealable." Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 9 A.3d 206, 210 (Pa. Super. 2010). An order is appealable if it is: (1) a final order, (2) an interlocutory order appealable by right or permission, or (3) a collateral order. Id.
The present appeal falls within none of the enumerated categories and, accordingly, we are compelled to quash. A final order is one expressly defined by statute, one disposing of all claims and all parties, or one expressly determined to be final by the trial court because an immediate appeal thereof would facilitate resolution of the entire case. Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). Instantly, none of the foregoing scenarios applies.
Moreover, although Pa.R.A.P 311 permits interlocutory appeals as of right, none of the listed provisions is applicable in this case and Appellant has not sought permission for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1311.
Finally, a collateral order is one that is separable from the main cause of action, is too important to be denied review, and will be irreparably lost if appellate review is postponed. Scarborough, 9 A.3d at 211. Such is not the situation in this matter.