J. S36036/17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

JAMES E. JACKSON, : No. 2600 EDA 2016

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the PCRA Order, July 19, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-1202331-2005

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 17, 2017

James E. Jackson appeals from the order of July 19, 2016, dismissing 

his PCRA1 petition. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The PCRA court has summarized the procedural history of this case as 

follows:

On March 29, 2005, appellant was arrested 

and charged with Attempt[ed] Murder, Aggravated 

Assault[,] Simple Assault, Terroristic Threats, PIC 

and REAP. On April 12, 2007, following a bench trial 

before this Court, he was found not guilty of 

Attempt[ed] Murder but guilty of the remaining 

charges. On July 18, 2007, appellant was sentenced 

to twenty-five (25) to fifty (50) years[’] 

imprisonment on the Aggravated Assault charge 

since it constituted a third strike. See 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9714. The Commonwealth argued for life without 

parole or the maximum sentence on all charges

running consecutively. See 7/18/2007 at 13-14.

 

1

Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J. S36036/17

- 2 -

On March 28, 2016, appellant filed his first 

Motion pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(PCRA), pro se. On June 13, 2016, following a 

review of the record and appellant’s PCRA petition, 

this Court sent appellant Notice pursuant to 

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907 

advising him of the Court’s intention to dismiss his 

PCRA Petition without a hearing, and of his right to 

respond within twenty days. Appellant did not 

respond to the 907 Notice and his PCRA Petition was 

dismissed on July 19, 2016. This [timely] appeal 

followed.

PCRA court opinion, 10/17/16 at 1 (footnote omitted).

On July 6, 2017, this court remanded to the PCRA court for 30 days to 

determine whether appellant was afforded his rule-based right to assistance 

of counsel on a first PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 

A.2d 848, 851 (Pa.Super. 2002) (“An indigent petitioner is entitled to 

appointment of counsel on his first PCRA petition, even where the petition 

appears untimely on its face.” (citations omitted)); Pa.R.Crim.P. 904. We 

observed that while appellant is represented by counsel on the instant 

appeal, the record indicated that appellant’s petition was filed pro se and 

counsel did not file an amended petition on appellant’s behalf or respond to 

Rule 907 notice. Commonwealth v. Jackson, No. 2600 EDA 2016 

(Pa.Super. filed July 6, 2017) (per curiam). We retained panel jurisdiction. 

On July 25, 2017, the PCRA court filed a supplemental opinion finding 

that appellant’s petition was improperly dismissed without appointment of 

counsel. (PCRA court opinion, 7/25/17 at 2-3.) Therefore, it is necessary to 
J. S36036/17

- 3 -

remand for counsel to be appointed to assist appellant with his first PCRA 

petition. Commonwealth v. Ramos, 14 A.3d 894, 895 (Pa.Super. 2011) 

(“It is well-established that a first-time PCRA petitioner whose petition 

appears untimely on its face is entitled to representation for assistance in 

determining whether the petition is timely or whether any exception to the

normal time requirements is applicable.” (citations omitted)).

Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/17/2017