What did the court decide?

The court quashed (dismissed) the Notice of Appeal because the appeal did not comply with the rule requiring issues to be properly set out in the jurisdictional statement.

Who is affected by this order?

The appellant, Pedro Luis Gavilan-Cruz, is affected because his attempt to bring the matter before the court has been terminated by this order.

Does this resolve the underlying case on the merits?

No. The court’s action was procedural—quashing the notice for noncompliance with appellate rules—not a decision on the substantive legal issues of the underlying case.

Can this order be appealed or challenged?

Options are limited; typically, a party may seek rehearing or correct procedural defects and refile if permitted, so the appellant should consult counsel promptly about seeking reconsideration or other relief.

Gavilan-Cruz, P., Aplt v. Mason, B.

Docket 23 MAP 2026

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherDismissed

Filed: Apr 30, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Type: Unanimous Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 23 MAP 2026

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from an attempted appeal by Pedro Luis Gavilan-Cruz

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, issued an order on April 30, 2026, quashing Pedro Luis Gavilan-Cruz’s Notice of Appeal. The court relied on Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 910(a)(5), indicating that the appeal did not comply with the requirement that only the questions in the jurisdictional statement (or those fairly comprised therein) will ordinarily be considered. As a result, the court declined to consider the appeal and dismissed the appeal process by quashing the notice.

Issue Decided

Whether the Notice of Appeal complied with Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5) by presenting questions properly set forth in the jurisdictional statement

Court's Reasoning

The court applied Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5), which limits consideration to questions included in the jurisdictional statement or fairly comprised within it. Because the appellant’s filing failed to satisfy that rule, the court concluded it would not consider the appeal and therefore quashed the Notice of Appeal. The procedural noncompliance was dispositive rather than a disposition on the merits.

Authorities Cited

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 910(a)(5)Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5)

Parties

Appellant: Pedro Luis Gavilan-Cruz
Appellee: Bernadette Mason, Facility Manager of SCI-Mahanoy
Appellee: District Attorney of Lancaster County
Appellee: Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Judge: Per Curiam

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-30

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult an appellate attorney
Discuss whether the Notice of Appeal can be corrected, whether a petition for rehearing is appropriate, and any time limits for filing further motions.
2
Consider filing a petition for rehearing
If there are viable grounds (for example, that the jurisdictional statement did include the questions or that an exception applies), a timely petition for rehearing might be filed under the court's rules.
3
If rehearing is denied, evaluate alternative remedies
Work with counsel to determine whether any other procedural avenues exist, such as refiling an appeal if allowed or pursuing relief in the trial court, depending on the posture of the underlying matter.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court quashed (dismissed) the Notice of Appeal because the appeal did not comply with the rule requiring issues to be properly set out in the jurisdictional statement.
Who is affected by this order?: The appellant, Pedro Luis Gavilan-Cruz, is affected because his attempt to bring the matter before the court has been terminated by this order.
Does this resolve the underlying case on the merits?: No. The court’s action was procedural—quashing the notice for noncompliance with appellate rules—not a decision on the substantive legal issues of the underlying case.
Can this order be appealed or challenged?: Options are limited; typically, a party may seek rehearing or correct procedural defects and refile if permitted, so the appellant should consult counsel promptly about seeking reconsideration or other relief.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                MIDDLE DISTRICT


 PEDRO LUIS GAVILAN-CRUZ,           : No. 23 MAP 2026
                                    :
                Appellant           :
                                    :
                                    :
           v.                       :
                                    :
                                    :
 BERNADETTE MASON, FACILITY MANAGER :
 OF SCI-MAHANOY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY  :
 OF LANCASTER COUNTY, AND ATTORNEY :
 GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA,           :
                                    :
                Appellees           :


                                           ORDER


PER CURIAM
       AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2026, the Notice of Appeal is QUASHED. See

Pa.R.A.P. 910(a)(5) (“Only the questions set forth in the [jurisdictional] statement, or fairly

comprised therein will ordinarily be considered by the Court.”).