J-S70010-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RANYELL B. SEVERINO-MOTA 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 742 MDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order April 4, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002957-2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Appellant, Ranyell B. Severino-Mota, appeals from the order entered in 

the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his first petition 

filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. On December 2, 2015, a jury convicted Appellant of two counts of 

attempted murder, four counts of aggravated assault and simple assault, 

and one count each of possessing instruments of crime and recklessly 

endangering another person. The court sentenced Appellant on December 

14, 2015, to an aggregate term of 171⁄2 to 40 years’ imprisonment, plus five 

years’ probation. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.

On January 12, 2017, Appellant timey filed a counseled first PCRA 

petition. Without issuing any notice per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the court 

summarily dismissed the petition on April 4, 2017. Appellant timely filed a 
J-S70010-17

- 2 -

notice of appeal on May 4, 2017. On May 8, 2017, the court ordered 

Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; Appellant timely complied.

Preliminarily, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907 provides, in 

relevant part:

Rule 907. Disposition Without Hearing

Except as provided in Rule 909 for death penalty cases, 

(1) the judge shall promptly review the petition, any 

answer by the attorney for the Commonwealth, and other 

matters of record relating to the defendant’s claim(s). If 

the judge is satisfied from this review that there are no 

genuine issues concerning any material fact and that the 

defendant is not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief, 

and no purpose would be served by any further 

proceedings, the judge shall give notice to the parties of 

the intention to dismiss the petition and shall state in the 

notice the reasons for the dismissal. The defendant may 

respond to the proposed dismissal within 20 days of the 

date of the notice. The judge thereafter shall order the 

petition dismissed, grant leave to file an amended petition, 

or direct that the proceedings continue.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Issuance of Rule 907 notice is mandatory. 

Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 749 A.2d 502 (Pa.Super. 2000). See also 

Commonwealth v. Feighery, 661 A.2d 437 (Pa.Super. 1995) (explaining 

notice requirement of intention to dismiss is mandatory; vacating and 

remanding for fulfillment of notice requirement).1 

____________________________________________

1 Where a PCRA petition is untimely, the court’s failure to issue Rule 907 

notice is not reversible error. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 

(Pa.Super. 2013). Because the current PCRA petition was timely filed, this 

exception does not apply.
J-S70010-17

- 3 -

Instantly, Appellant filed a timely, counseled first PCRA petition on 

January 12, 2017. The court summarily dismissed the petition on April 4, 

2017, without first issuing Rule 907 notice and giving Appellant an 

opportunity to respond. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court 

concedes its error and asks this Court to remand for further proceedings. 

The Commonwealth agrees remand is proper. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1); 

Guthrie, supra; Feighery, supra. Accordingly, we vacate the order 

denying PCRA relief and remand for appropriate further proceedings.

Order vacated; case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction is 

relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/14/2017