J

- S05042

- 18

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v. GLENN MUMAU , Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

1485 WDA 2017 Appeal from the Order September 21, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 33

- CR

- 0000014

- 2016
BEFORE: OLSON, OTT , and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MARCH 20, 2018 Glenn Mumau (Appellant) pro se appeals from the order entered September 21, 20 1 7, denying his motion for reconsideration of sentence nunc pro tunc . Upon review, we vacate the order and remand for proceedings
consist ent with this memorandum. On August 31, 2016, Appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of corrupt organizations, one count of operation of a methamphetamine lab, and four counts of delivery of methamphetamine. On September 7, 2016, Appellant was sen tenced to an aggre gate term of 86 months to 30 years of incarceration. Appellant timely filed a post
- sentence motion, which was denied on September 16, 2016. Appellant did not file a direct appeal. On September 20, 2017, Appellant pro se filed a motion for reconsideration nunc pro tunc . The trial court denied this motion onJ

- S05042

- 18

- 2

-

September 22, 2017. This timely

- filed appeal followed. Both Appellant and the court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Before we address the issues raised by Appellant, we must first a ddress whether Appellant is properly proceeding pro se in this Court. 1 In doing so, we are mindful of the following. “[A] ll motions filed after a judgment of sentence is final are to be construed as PCRA [ 2 ] petitions .” Commonwealth v. Taylor , 65 A.3d 462 , 466 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Fowler , 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2 007) (collecting cases)). See also Commonwealth v. Jackson , 30 A.3d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2011) ( quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson , 803 A.2d 1291, 1293 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“‘We have repeatedly held that ... any petition filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final will be treated as a PCRA petition.’”). Here, Appellant was sentenced on September 7, 2016, and his timely

filed po st
- sentence motion was denied on September 16, 2016. Pursuant to the PCRA, his judgment of sentence became final on October 17, 2016, when he failed to file a direct appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 (“[A] judgment

1 Although Appellant has not specifically raised an issue regarding his lack of PCRA counsel, we observe that we may do so sua sponte. See Commonwealth v. Stossel , 17 A.3d 1286, 1290 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discussing the right of Superior Court to address an appellant’s lack of counsel sua sponte in PCRA matter).

2 Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 9546.J

- S05042

- 18

- 3

-

becomes final at the conclusion of direct r eview... or at the expiration of time for seeking the review.”). Accordingly, the trial court should have treated Appellant’s September 20, 2017 motion as a first, timely

- filed PCRA petition. Rule 904 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the app ointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner on his first PCRA petition. 3 Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C) ; Order, 10/6/2017 (granting Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis )

. Because this was Appellant’s first filing, he was entitled to the appointment of counsel. Therefore, we vacate the order denying the motion and remand to the trial court for the appointment of counsel. If Appellant wishes to proceed pro se , a Grazier 4 hearing is required. Order vacated. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

3 This requirement applies irrespective of whether Appellant requested counsel to be appointed. See Commonwealth v. Auchmuty , 799 A.2d 823, 826 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“ [This Court] opined that clearly Rule [] 904 does not require petitioners to affirmatively request appointment of cou nsel and concluded it also was necessary to remand for appointment of counsel.”).

4 Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).J

- S05042

- 18

- 4

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/20/2018