J-S37016-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. RONALD MACK, Appellant No. 1088 WDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 23, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0001722-2004, CP-63-CR-0001723- 2004
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN and LAZARUS, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JUNE 3, 2016 Appellant, Ronald Mack, appeals pro se from the order entered on June 23, 2015, in the Washington County Court of Common Pleas that denied his
pro se petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Rel ief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We vacate the order and remand for the appointment of counsel. Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty on March 9, 2007, of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of atte mpted criminal homicide, one count of arson-endangering persons, one count o f arson-endangering property, and seven counts of risking a catastrophe . On July 13, 2007, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate ter m of twenty-seven to fifty-four years of incarceration. Appellant filed a direct appeal to theJ-S37016-16

- 2 -

Superior Court that was quashed as untimely. Order , 11/20/07. Appellant then filed a timely PCRA petition seeking the reins tatement of his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc . The PCRA court granted relief, and Appellant filed a timley nunc pro tunc direct appeal. This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence in a memorandum filed on March 23, 2010. Commonwealth v. Mack , 1735 WDA 2008, 996 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. filed March 23, 2010) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied , 8 A.3d 343 (Pa. 2010). Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition pro se on August 22, 2014. The PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition on June 23, 2015. The PCRA court also concluded that Appellant was not entitle d to counsel as this was a second PCRA petition. PCRA Opinion, 1/11/16, at 5. This appeal followed. After careful review, we are constrained to vacate the PCRA court’s order and remand this case for the appointment of c ounsel. “[A] successful first PCRA petition does not “reset the clock” for the calculation of the finality of the judgment of sentence for purposes of the PCR A where the relief granted in the first petition neither restored a pe titioner’s direct appeal rights nor disturbed his conviction, but, rather, a ffected his sentence only.” Commonwealth v. McKeever , 947 A.2d 782, 785, (Pa. Super. 2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Dehart , 730 A.2d 991, 994 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1999)). However, “when a PCRA petitioner’s direct appeal rights are reinstated nunc pro tunc in his first PCRA petition, a subsequent PCRAJ-S37016-16

- 3 -

petition will be considered a first PCRA petition f or timeliness purposes.” Commonwealth v. Turner , 73 A.3d 1283, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2013). Here, Appellant’s first PCRA petition resulted in the reinstatement of his direct appeal rights. Appellant subsequently p ursued a direct appeal and then filed the underlying PCRA petition. That peti tion, the subject of this appeal, while chronologically his second, is effect ively, his first. Turner , 73 A.3d at 1286. It is well settled that an appellant has a right to counsel to litigate a first PCRA petition even if the petition appears untimely on its face. Commonwealth v. Stossel , 17 A.3d 1286, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2011). Accordingly, we vacate the order denying Appellant ’s PCRA petition, and we remand this matter for the appointment of co unsel to represent Appellant in preparing and litigating his PCRA peti tion. Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/3/2016J-S37016-16

- 4 -