J-S60024-17

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SHAQUILLE MCCORD, 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 182 WDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order January 5, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-11-CR-0001315-2012

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 29, 2017

Appellant, Shaquille McCord, appeals pro se from the January 5, 2017 

Order denying as untimely his first pro se Petition filed pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. The PCRA court

failed to appoint counsel as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C) and, therefore, 

we are constrained to vacate and remand for the appointment of PCRA 

counsel. 

On September 3, 2013, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of 

seven to fourteen years’ incarceration following his guilty plea to Attempted 

Criminal Homicide. Appellant filed Post-Sentence Motions, which the trial 

court denied on September 12, 2013. Appellant did not file a Notice of 

Appeal. 

On December 13, 2016, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA 

Petition, his first, requesting the reinstatement of his appellate rights nunc 
J-S60024-17

- 2 -

pro tunc due to ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his 

constitutional rights. In his Petition, Appellant asserted that he is without 

the financial resources to obtain a lawyer and requested that the court 

appoint a lawyer to represent him. The PCRA court did not grant Appellant’s 

request.

On December 13, 2016, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to 

dismiss the PCRA Petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 

907(1), stating that the Petition was untimely. On December 27, 2016, 

Appellant filed a pro se Response. On January 5, 2017, the PCRA court 

entered its Order dismissing Appellant’s pro se PCRA Petition as untimely. 

Appellant filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal. 

Appellant concedes that his Petition was facially untimely, but avers 

that the PCRA court should have appointed counsel to aid Appellant in his 

attempt to establish an exception to the time-bar. Appellant’s Brief at 6. 

We agree.

It is well-settled that indigent petitioners are entitled to representation 

by counsel for a first petition filed under the PCRA. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C) 

(stating that when an unrepresented defendant is unable to afford counsel, 

the judge shall appoint counsel to represent the defendant on the 

defendant’s first petition for PCRA relief). “[T]he denial of PCRA relief to an

indigent first-time petitioner cannot stand unless the petitioner was afforded 

the assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Price, 876 A.2d 988, 993 

(Pa. Super. 2005) (citation and quotation omitted). Further, an indigent 
J-S60024-17

- 3 -

first-time petitioner “is entitled to counsel to represent him despite any 

apparent untimeliness of the petition or the apparent non-cognizability of the 

claims presented.” Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259, 1262 (Pa. 

Super. 2001) (citation omitted). Finally, “we will not hold an indigent pro 

se petitioner responsible for presenting a cognizable claim for relief until, 

pursuant to Rule 904(a), petitioner has been given the opportunity to be 

represented by appointed counsel.” Commonwealth v. Evans, 866 A.2d 

442, 445 (Pa. Super. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to vacate the PCRA 

court’s Order denying Appellant’s PCRA Petition as untimely. We remand 

this case for the court to appoint PCRA counsel pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 

904(C), and for further proceedings appropriate under the PCRA. 

Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/29/2017