J-S63008-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

STEPHEN RODNEY WHITE

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2629 EDA 2018

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 2, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0008268-2004

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 13, 2019

Appellant, Stephen Rodney White, appeals pro se from the order entered 

in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed as 

untimely his first petition, relative to his revocation sentence, under the Post

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. On October 

25, 2005, the court convicted Appellant of burglary and related offenses, in 

connection with a string of burglaries Appellant had committed in multiple 

counties. The court sentenced Appellant on February 2, 2006, to an aggregate 

6 to 12 years’ imprisonment, plus 5 years’ probation. On November 30, 2009, 

this Court affirmed the sentence. See Commonwealth v. White, 990 A.2d 

57 (Pa.Super. 2009). Between 2010 and 2014, Appellant unsuccessfully 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S63008-19

- 2 -

litigated a PCRA petition. 

While on parole in 2015, Appellant committed new crimes. Following 

his convictions on the new charges, the court held a revocation of 

parole/probation hearing on August 11, 2016, revoked Appellant’s 

parole/probation, and resentenced him to 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment. On 

September 12, 2016, Appellant pro se timely filed a PCRA petition, relative to 

his revocation sentence, challenging the legality of the revocation sentence,

and requested appointment of counsel. Specifically, Appellant claimed his 

revocation sentence was illegal.

1

 On January 19, 2018, the court issued notice 

per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, stating Appellant’s current PCRA petition was untimely. 

Appellant responded pro se, and the court denied relief on August 2, 2018, 

without a hearing or appointing counsel. On August 31, 2018, Appellant 

timely filed a pro se notice of appeal. The same day, the court ordered 

Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; Appellant complied. 

“Pursuant to the rules of criminal procedure and interpretive case law, 

a criminal defendant has a right to representation of counsel for purposes of 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Milhomme, 35 A.3d 1219 (Pa.Super. 

2011) (vacating and remanding where original sentence was illegal due to trial 

court’s imposition of flat imprisonment sentence; because original sentence 

was illegal, most recent probation revocation sentence is also illegal; vacating 

original sentence and most recent revocation sentence and remanding for 

resentencing) and Commonwealth v. Everett, 419 A.2d 793 (Pa.Super. 

1980) (explaining where original probationary sentence imposed was illegal, 

sentence of imprisonment imposed for violation of that probation was also 

illegal and both sentences must be vacated).
J-S63008-19

- 3 -

litigating a first PCRA petition through the entire appellate process.” 

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 970 A.2d 455, 457 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en 

banc). See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C) (stating indigent defendant is entitled 

to counsel for litigation of first PCRA petition). “The denial of PCRA relief [on 

a first petition] cannot stand unless the petitioner was afforded the assistance 

of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa.Super. 2002). 

Instantly, the record confirms Appellant is indigent and requested 

appointment of counsel in this first PCRA petition following imposition of the 

revocation sentence. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s current petition 

as untimely. Nevertheless, Appellant’s current petition expressly calls into 

question the legality of his revocation sentence, which “reset” the clock for 

purposes of the timeliness analysis. See Commonwealth v. Anderson, 788 

A.2d 1019 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal denied, 568 Pa. 732, 798 A.2d 1286 

(2002) (holding time for seeking PCRA relief after revocation of probation and 

imposition of new sentence runs from one year of conclusion of direct review 

of new sentence, for issues concerning new sentence). This PCRA petition is 

Appellant’s first relative to his revocation sentence, and he was entitled to

appointment of counsel. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C); Robinson, supra; Perez, 

supra. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying PCRA relief and remand for 

appointment of counsel and further proceedings. See Commonwealth v. 

Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259 (Pa.Super. 2001) (vacating order denying PCRA 

relief and remanding for appointment of counsel and further proceedings in 
J-S63008-19

- 4 -

PCRA court where court failed to appoint counsel for appellant’s first PCRA

petition).

Order vacated; case remanded. Jurisdiction is relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/13/19