J-S30024-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LAWRENCE WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 1641 WDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered October 6, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No: CP-02-CR-0008470-2009
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J. AND STRASSBURGER,* J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2018
Appellant, Lawrence Williams, appeals from an order dismissing his
petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
9546, without a hearing. We vacate the order of dismissal and remand for
further proceedings.
On October 26, 2010, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count each of
person not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, receiving
stolen property, escape, possession of a controlled substance (heroin) and
possession of drug paraphernalia.1 The trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of 3½-10 years’ imprisonment. Appellant did not file post-
sentence motions or a direct appeal.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
118 Pa. C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 3925(a), 5121(a), and 35 P.S. §
780-113(a)(16) and (a)(32), respectively.
J-S30024-18
On January 24, 2017, Williams filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging his
trial counsel’s ineffectiveness with regard to his guilty plea. The certified
record does not contain the PCRA court’s notice of intent to dismiss Williams’
petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Nevertheless, it
appears that the PCRA court filed a Rule 907 notice, because Williams’ brief
includes a copy of a Rule 907 notice time-stamped March 2, 2017. On March
30, 2017, Williams filed a pro se document entitled “Supplement and Answer
to Notice of Intent to Dismiss” which appears to be a response to the Rule 907
notice. On May 8, 2017, one month after Appellant’s response, the PCRA court
appointed Suzanne M. Swan, Esquire, to represent Appellant in further
proceedings.
These facts demonstrate that the PCRA court erred by issung a Rule 907
notice without first appointing counsel for Williams. This was Williams’ first
PCRA petition, so he was entitled to counsel throughout these PCRA
proceedings. Commonwealth v. Cherry, 155 A.3d 1080, 1082-83 (Pa.
Super. 2017); Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C). To its credit, the Commonwealth
recognizes this error by requesting that this Court remand this matter to
ensure that Williams receives the benefit of counsel. Commonwealth’s Brief
at 7-8.
Accordingly, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the case to
the PCRA court with instructions to give attorney Swan the opportunity to
either “(1) amend the petitioner’s pro se [p]etition and present the petitioner’s
-2-
J-S30024-18
claims in acceptable legal terms, or (2) certify that the claims lack merit by
complying with the mandates of Turner/Finley.”2 Cherry, 155 A.3d at 1083.
Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings in accordance
with this judgment order. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/22/2018
____________________________________________
2Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v.
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988).
-3-