J-S79022-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

VERNELL MORRIS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3731 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 3, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-1113151-1992

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

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 01, 2018

Vernell Morris appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Philadelphia County, dismissing his petition for collateral relief filed 

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. We 

vacate and remand. 

Following a waiver trial before the Honorable Paul Ribner, Morris was 

convicted of first-degree murder, five counts each of aggravated assault and 

recklessly endangering another person, and possession of an instrument of 

crime. On September 8, 1994, Judge Ribner sentenced Morris to life 

imprisonment. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. 

Commonwealth v Morris, 678 A.2d 831 (Pa. Super. 1996) (Table), and on 

January 7, 1997, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for 

allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Morris, 689 A.2d 232 (Pa. 1997) 

(Table). Morris did not seek certiorari in the United States Supreme Court
J-S79022-17

- 2 -

and, therefore, his judgment of sentence became final on April 7, 1997, when 

the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme 

Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3) (“a judgment becomes final at 

the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme 

Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the 

expiration of time for seeking the review.”). See also U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13, 28 

U.S.C.A. 

On September 22, 2008, Morris filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus, 

which the Honorable Sheila Woods-Skipper dismissed without prejudice to 

allow him to file a PCRA petition. On July 20, 2012, Morris filed his first pro

se PCRA petition and the court served him with notice of its intention to 

dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Morris did not respond to the Rule 

907 notice and the PCRA court dismissed Morris’ petition as untimely on 

November 3, 2016. This appeal followed. Thereafter, the PCRA court filed its 

opinion, requesting this Court remand for appointment of counsel pursuant to 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C) (“[W]hen an unrepresented defendant satisfies the judge 

that the defendant is unable to afford or otherwise procure counsel, the judge 

shall appoint counsel to represent the defendant on the defendant’s first 

petition for post-conviction collateral relief.”). 

Here, neither the 2008 petition nor the 2012 petition were counseled. 

Morris has not been afforded the assistance of counsel in a prior postconviction proceeding. We agree with the PCRA court that remand for 
J-S79022-17

- 3 -

appointment of counsel is necessary here. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C); see also 

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

This necessary conclusion . . . implicates a long line of 

Pennsylvania precedent requiring unequivocally that prisoners 

seeking post-conviction relief by whatever name be afforded the 

assistance of counsel. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 572 Pa. 

572, 818 A.2d 494, 498 (2003) (“[T]he rules of criminal procedure 

require the appointment of counsel in PCRA proceedings.”); 

Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 720 A.2d 693, 699 

(1999) (“The denial of PCRA relief cannot stand unless the 

petitioner was afforded the assistance of counsel.”);

[Commonwealth v.] Kutnyak, 781 A.2d [1259,] 1262 [(Pa. 

Super. 2001)] (holding that appellant is entitled to representation 

of counsel on first PCRA petition “despite any apparent 

untimeliness of the petition or the apparent non-cognizability of 

the claims presented”); Guthrie, 749 A.2d at 504 (remanding for 

appointment of counsel); Commonwealth v. Quail, 729 A.2d 

571, 573 (Pa. Super. 1999) (same); Commonwealth v. 

Ferguson, 722 A.2d 177, 180 (Pa. Super. 1998) (same). These 

holdings follow from the mandatory language contained in 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 904, formerly Pa.R.Crim.P. 1504.

Commonwealth v. Evans, 866 A.2d 442, 444 (Pa. Super. 2005).

We remand for the appointment of counsel and the preparation of an 

amended petition as well as further proceedings as directed by the PCRA court.

Order vacated. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this 

decision. Jurisdiction relinquished.
J-S79022-17

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/1/18