J-S14008-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MATTHEW J. VASQUEZ 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 887 WDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 7, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-63-MD-0000309-2020

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JULY 15, 2022

Matthew J. Vasquez appeals from the order denying his Post Conviction 

Relief Act petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Because this was 

Vasquez’s first PCRA petition and the PCRA court failed to appoint counsel, we 

vacate and remand for the appointment of counsel and further proceedings. 

The trial court found Vasquez guilty of six counts of indirect criminal 

contempt and in May 2020 imposed consecutive sentences for each count, for 

an aggregate sentence of 18 to 36 months’ imprisonment. This sentence was 

imposed as consecutive to a sentence he received in another case. Vasquez 

filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied in an order docketed 

on January 4, 2021. Vasquez did not appeal.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S14008-22

- 2 -

In May 2021, Vasquez filed a pro se PCRA petition seeking reinstatement 

of his appeal rights nunc pro tunc. The PCRA court did not appoint PCRA 

counsel, and no counsel entered an appearance. Vasquez’s petition stated he 

had counsel but listed the name of his trial counsel. No attorney filed any 

documents related to the PCRA petition on Vasquez’s behalf.

The court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition under 

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907. It dismissed the petition in July 

2021, and Vasquez timely appealed. He raises the following issue: “Did the 

PCRA Court err, when it refused to reinstate [Vasquez’s] appeal rights, [n]unc 

[p]ro [t]unc?” Vasquez’s Br. at 4.

We will not reach the merits of Vasquez’s appellate argument because 

he did not have the assistance of counsel in the PCRA proceedings below. We 

are required to address an indigent, first-time PCRA petitioner’s lack of counsel 

even if no party or the PCRA court raised it. Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 

A.3d 1286, 1290 (Pa.Super. 2011). 

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 904 provides that in non-death 

penalty cases, “when an unrepresented defendant satisfies the judge that the 

defendant is unable to afford or otherwise procure counsel, the judge shall 

appoint counsel to represent the defendant on the defendant’s first petition 

for post-conviction collateral relief.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C). This “rule-based 

right to counsel and to effective assistance of counsel extends throughout the 

post-conviction proceedings, including any appeal from the disposition of the 
J-S14008-22

- 3 -

PCRA petition.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049, 1053 (Pa.Super. 

2015) (citation omitted).

The record contains no entry of appearance of counsel, appointment of 

counsel, or waiver of the right to counsel. Vasquez proceeded pro se from the 

filing of his PCRA petition through the filing of the appellate brief. This was 

improper. Accordingly, we vacate the order dismissing Vasquez’s PCRA

petition and remand to the PCRA court for a determination of Vasquez’s 

eligibility for appointed counsel and if appropriate, the appointment of counsel, 

and further proceedings.

Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/15/2022