Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 17, 2012, In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-08-CR-0000396-2011, CP-08-CR-0000397-2011, CP-08-CR-0000398-2011.
BEFORE: SHOGAN, MUNDY and COLVILLE [*], JJ.
Appellant, Bryan Joseph Alteri, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered May 17, 2012. Upon review, we affirm.
This appeal arises from convictions on three separate matters. The trial court joined two matters, CR-396-2011 (Superior Court docket number 1179 MDA 2012) and CR-397-2011 (Superior Court docket number 1180 MDA 2012) for purposes of a jury trial that took place on November 9, 2011. During that trial, Appellant was convicted of burglary, criminal trespass, possession of a controlled substance, and theft by unlawful taking at CR-396-2011. In the same trial, Appellant was convicted of escape and theft by unlawful taking at CR-397-2011. On November 16, 2011, in a separate jury trial, Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit theft by deception and retail theft in CR-398-2011 (Superior Court docket number 1181 MDA 2012). Appellant was sentenced on all convictions on May 17, 2012, to an aggregate minimum sentence of five years plus one month and an aggregate maximum of fourteen years.
Appellant filed post-sentence motions in all three matters on May 23, 2012. The trial court denied Appellant's post-sentence motions by order entered May 25, 2012. Appellant filed notices of appeal, one in each case, on June 28, 2012. By order of this Court, we sua sponte consolidated all three cases for review on appeal. Order, 7/25/12. Appellant has filed identical briefs in all three cases.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
I. Did the trial court err in allowing improper joinder?
II. Did the trial court err in allowing improper hearsay evidence?
III. Did the trial court err in imposing aggravated range sentences when there were insufficient aggravating factors?
Appellant's Briefs at 10.
Prior to addressing the merits of Appellant's claims, we must determine whether Appellant's notices of appeal were timely filed. By Order of this Court, dated July 18, 2012, Appellant was directed to show cause why the current appeal should not be quashed as it was filed more than thirty days after the denial of Appellant's post-sentence motions. In his timely response, Appellant states the following:
4. In these cases, the post sentence motions were denied by orders dated and time-stamped on May 25, 2012, at 4:49 pm. That day was a Friday, the prothonotary's office closed at 5:00 pm, and due to the Memorial Day holiday, the next ...