Com. v. Alexander, L. - Appeal Quashed
Summary
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania quashed an appeal filed by Louis E. Alexander. The court found that Alexander was appealing a non-final order, specifically the denial of his motion to disqualify the PCRA court judge. The appeal was dismissed as premature.
What changed
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of Commonwealth v. Alexander, L., issued a non-precedential decision quashing an appeal filed by Louis E. Alexander. The appeal was based on the denial of Alexander's motion to disqualify the PCRA court judge. The court determined that the order denying the disqualification motion was not a final order, and therefore, the appeal was premature and subject to being quashed under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(a).
This ruling has practical implications for individuals involved in post-conviction relief proceedings. It reinforces the principle that appeals can only be taken from final orders that dispose of all claims and parties. Litigants should ensure that any appeals are filed against final judgments or orders to avoid dismissal. For legal professionals representing defendants in similar situations, this means carefully assessing the finality of court orders before initiating an appeal to prevent procedural delays and potential dismissal.
What to do next
- Review appellate rules regarding finality of orders for any pending or future appeals.
- Ensure all appeals are filed against final orders that dispose of all claims and parties.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
by McLaughlin](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10808610/com-v-alexander-l/about:blank#o1)
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Com. v. Alexander, L.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 640 EDA 2025
- Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Judges: McLaughlin
Combined Opinion
by McLaughlin
J-S43020-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LOUIS E. ALEXANDER :
:
Appellant : No. 640 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 4, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0005336-2013
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MARCH 13, 2026
Louis E. Alexander appeals pro se from the denial of his motion to
disqualify. Since Alexander appeals from an order that is not final, we quash
the appeal.
In 2015, a jury convicted Alexander of first-degree murder, carrying a
firearm without a license, and possessing an instrument of crime. 1 The court
sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole for the murder conviction
and concurrent terms of one to two years reporting probation for the
remaining offenses. We affirmed the judgment of sentence and our Supreme
Court denied Alexander’s petition for allowance of appeal in 2017. See
Commonwealth v. Alexander, No. 1404 EDA 2016, 2017 WL 2929123
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 6106(a)(1), and 907(a), respectively.
J-S43020-25
(Pa.Super. filed July 10, 2017) (unpublished mem.), appeal denied, 176 A.3d
231 (Table) (Pa. filed December 5, 2017).
Alexander filed the instant pro se PCRA petition, his second, in May
- On December 30, 2024, the PCRA court filed a Rule 907 notice of its
intent to dismiss the petition. See Notice Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Criminal Procedure 907, filed 12/30/24. Alexander filed a motion to extend
the deadline to file a response to the Rule 907 notice, which the court granted.
See Order, filed 1/21/25. Alexander then filed what he purported to be an
amended PCRA petition as well as his response to the Rule 907 notice on
January 22, 2025. The same day, he also filed a Motion to Disqualify the PCRA
court judge. See Motion to Disqualify Judge, Joseph Scott O’Keefe Pursuant
to Pa.R.C.P. 1701, filed 1/22/25. The court denied the motion to disqualify.
Alexander then filed the instant appeal challenging the court’s denial of his
motion. Both the PCRA court and the Commonwealth maintain that this appeal
is premature and should be quashed.
“[A]n appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a . . . trial
court.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). Final orders are those that dispose of all claims and
all parties. See Am. Indep. Ins. Co. v. E.S., 809 A.2d 388, 391 (Pa.Super.
2002). For purposes of the PCRA, “[a]n order granting, denying, dismissing,
or otherwise finally disposing of a petition for post-conviction collateral relief
shall constitute a final order for purposes of appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(f). We may
address a premature appeal if subsequent actions of the PCRA court ripen the
appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (“A notice of appeal filed after the
-2-
J-S43020-25
announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order
shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.”).
Here, the denial of the motion to “disqualify” the judge is not a final
order because it did not dispose of all claims and parties. See Int. of D.R.,
216 A.3d 286, 292 (Pa.Super. 2019); In re Bridgeport Fire Litig., 51 A.3d
224, 229 (Pa.Super. 2012) (“an order on a motion for recusal is an
interlocutory order for purposes of an appeal”). Rule 905 does not apply since
the PCRA court took no further action in addressing Alexander’s petition once
he appealed.
Appeal quashed.
Date: 3/13/2026
-3-
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when PA Superior Court publishes new changes.