IN THE INTEREST OF: P.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF P.S., A MINOR
from the Orders of March 28, 2016 and April 11, 2016 In the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Juvenile Division
at No(s): CP-02-JV-000183-2015, CP-02-JV-0001963-2015, FID
02-FN-034554-2010 and SID 429-53-30-0.
BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON and STRASSBURGER, [*] JJ.
P.S., a juvenile, appeals from the order entered on March 28,
2016 adjudicating him delinquent of three
offenses without further disposition, as well as a
subsequent dispositional order, following the revocation of
his probation, entered on April 11, 2016. Upon careful
consideration, we affirm Appellant's adjudications for
receiving stolen property and fleeing or attempting to elude
a police officer, but vacate his adjudication for flight to
avoid apprehension. Further, we affirm the dispositional
order entered on April 11, 2016.
trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
Officer Steven Kester[, ] a police officer with the North
Braddock Police Department[, ] stated that on Sunday, January
17, 2016 at approximately [8:10 p.m.], he and a fellow
officer were on patrol when they came into contact with a
Jeep SUV. According to Officer Kester, he ran the license
plate number of the Jeep SUV because moments before, he had
learned from the East Pittsburgh Police Department that a
Jeep SUV had been reported stolen.
Upon confirmation that the license plate on the vehicle
matched that of the Jeep SUV that was reported stolen,
Officer Kester testified that they activated their lights and
siren on the police vehicle and attempted to stop the Jeep
SUV. Officer Kester testified that instead of stopping, the
Jeep SUV 'took off, went down a couple [of] streets,
turned down a back alley along the train tracks, lost control
on a dirt road and smashed into a tree.' Officer Kester
added that once the vehicle took off, it traveled at a rate
above the speed limit for approximately one-half mile before
the driver lost control of the Jeep SUV on an icy, dirt road,
which caused the vehicle to slide sideways and impact a tree
head-on. The collision with the tree then caused the Jeep SUV
to be knocked down onto the railroad tracks. Officer Kester
testified that when the Jeep SUV crashed, the police car was
approximately twenty feet behind the Jeep forcing them to
slam on their brakes.
Once the vehicle stopped, Officer Kester was able to
determine the number of occupants in the Jeep SUV vehicle
because both the headlights of the police vehicle and the
'overhead take down lights' were extremely bright and
illuminated the interior of the Jeep SUV. Officer Kester saw
three occupants 'bail' out of the Jeep SUV from the
passenger side of the vehicle and flee the scene. Officer
Kester stated he was pretty sure that the individual behind
the steering wheel was wearing a puffy, blue coat. This
person was also the last one to exit the vehicle. The other
two occupants were wearing black hoodies.
Officer Kester pursued the person wearing the blue jacket. He
followed him down a hill, at times tripping and falling.
Officer Kester stated that during the foot chase, the person
in the blue jacket was never more than twenty to thirty feet
ahead of him.
Once they reached Corey Street, Officer Kester stated he
began yelling 'Taser' as he was running close behind
the individual. Shortly afterwards, the individual 'put
his hands up and turned around.' He then surrendered
himself to the officer. This person was later determined to
be P.S., [Appellant] in this case.
In court, Officer Kester testified that Appellant was
'wearing basically the same thing' in court that day
that he was wearing the night of his arrest: a blue jacket
similar to the one hanging from [A]ppellant's chair and a
headband he observed [A]ppellant wearing in the hallway.
Officer Kester identified [Appellant] as the person who
'was driving the car that night.'
Continuing in his testimony, Officer Kester explained that
[A]ppellant told him that he had been at a friend's home
earlier that evening, that the friend had called a
'jitney' for him, and that this jitney was the same
vehicle in which he was riding when the police pulled up
behind them. Appellant also denied knowing the other two
passengers in the vehicle.
The Commonwealth called [R.C. as its second witness. [R.C.]
testified that she had been the owner of a green, 2003 Jeep
Liberty that was stolen from her residence located in the
Regent Square neighborhood of the City of Pittsburgh. While
[R.C.] could not remember the exact date her 2003 Jeep was
stolen, [R.C.] testified it was taken on a Friday because
when she went out on Saturday morning to use the vehicle, her
car was missing. The police were called and a report was
made. [R.C.] testified that she was notified on Monday or
Tuesday by the police that her vehicle had been found
Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/2016, at 5-8 (record citations
the case progressed as follows. On January 25, 2016, the
Commonwealth filed a delinquency petition against Appellant
charging him with the aforementioned charges, as well as
possession of a controlled substance,  a charge the
Commonwealth eventually withdrew. Because Appellant was on
probation as the result of a prior adjudication of
delinquency for retail theft, the trial court scheduled a
joint hearing on February 22, 2016, to address the alleged
probation violations and the new offenses. The trial court,
however, continued the hearing because the alleged victim was
March 28, 2016, the trial court found Appellant delinquent of
the aforementioned charges. The trial court, however, did not
impose a disposition on the new adjudications. Instead, it
entered an order on March 28, 2016 stating, "[Appellant]
is ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT and no further disposition is
ordered because [Appellant] is currently under the
court's supervision" on his previous adjudication
for retail theft. Order, 5/28/2016, at 1. Immediately after
the adjudication hearing, the trial court proceeded to a
review hearing on the alleged probation violations. The trial
court found that Appellant was not meeting the terms and
conditions of his probation and that probation was no longer
appropriate. Accordingly, the trial court revoked
Appellant's probation on the underlying retail theft
adjudication and ordered that Appellant be committed to the
Penn Hills Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP).
When the trial court ordered the commitment to CISP,
Appellant became agitated. Thus, the trial court continued
the dispositional hearing on the probation violation until
the following day to reconsider whether CISP was an
appropriate placement for Appellant and to explain his
post-dispositional rights. On March 29, 2016, the trial court
deferred further disposition on the probation violation until
April 11, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the trial court entered a
probation violation dispositional order, directing placement
with the Outside-In Residential Program. On April 22, 2016,
Appellant filed a single notice of appeal from the March 28,
2016 order adjudicating him delinquent and imposing no
further disposition on the new delinquency adjudications.
Appellant's April 22, 2016 notice also appealed from the
dispositional order entered on April 11, 2016 for violating
the terms of probation following the prior adjudication for
we turn to the merits of this case, we must address several
procedural irregularities. Initially, we note that the trial
court recommends in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that
"because the [A]ppellant has not filed an appeal as to
the April 11, 2016 order entered, that his appeal should be
quashed for failing to timely file his appeal." Trial
Court Opinion, 7/12/2016, at 4. However, upon review of the
record, Appellant filed a single notice of appeal captioned
with the docket numbers from both the underlying retail theft
adjudication and new adjudications, purporting to appeal
"from the March 28, 2016, March 29, 2016, and April 11,
2016 dispositional orders." Notice of Appeal, 4/22/2016.
Thus, we reject the trial court's suggestion that we
quash the appeal for failing to file a notice of appeal from
the April 11, 2016 order.
recognize however, that "[w]here  one or more orders
resolves issues arising on more than one docket or relating
to more than one judgment, separate notices of appeal must be
filed." Note to Pa.R.A.P. 341, citing Commonwealth
v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111, 113 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007). In
C.M.K., this Court quashed a single appeal from two
judgments of sentence imposed on codefendants who were
convicted and sentenced individually on different charges.
C.M.K., 932 A.2d at 112. We noted that the filing of
the joint appeal in that instance was unworkable because the
appeals required individualized arguments, separate appellate
analyses of the evidence, and distinct examination of the
different sentences imposed. Id. This case is
distinguishable from C.M.K.
our Supreme Court recognized that the practice of appealing
multiple orders in a single appeal is discouraged under
Pa.R.A.P. 512 (joint appeals), it previously determined that
"appellate courts have not generally quashed [such]
appeals, provided that the issues involved are nearly
identical, no objection to the appeal has been raised, and
the period for appeal has expired." K.H. v.
J.R., 826 A.2d 863, 870 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted).
Here, Appellant presents intertwined issues related to his
new adjudications and revocation disposition, the
Commonwealth has not ...