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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37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, 2017, denying his motion for reconsideration of sentence nunc 

pro tunc. Upon review, we vacate the order and remand for proceedings 

consistent 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 sentenced to an aggregate 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 on 
J-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 address 

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. 2007) (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 timelyfiled post-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 review... 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 appointment 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 Grazier4 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 counsel 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