C. Williams v. PA BPP
337 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Casey Williams, paroled in 2005 from a drug sentence and supervised in New York, incurred subsequent arrests and was recommitted by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole for parole violations, receiving 12 months backtime in 2009 and a later 60-month backtime in 2016 (concurrent with prior time).
- Williams pled guilty in federal court in 2011 to drug and weapons charges and served a federal sentence; he was returned to state custody in December 2015 and recommitted as a convicted parole violator in March 2016.
- Williams filed an administrative appeal in April 2016 asking the Board to reconsider his five-year recommitment; the Board denied relief on February 24, 2017.
- Williams’s counsel filed a Petition for Withdrawal with a Turner-style no-merit letter asserting the 60-month backtime is within the Board’s discretion and citing presumptive recommitment ranges, but provided minimal analysis or explanation for the conclusion.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed counsel’s no-merit submission and found it substantively deficient under Turner and its progeny, because it did not adequately analyze the claim or explain why it was meritless.
- The court denied counsel’s withdrawal motion without prejudice and gave counsel 30 days to file an amended no-merit letter or a merits brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s Turner no-merit letter adequately supports withdrawal | Williams sought reduction of backtime as excessive | Counsel argued the 60-month backtime falls within the Board’s discretion and presumptive ranges | No — the no-merit letter lacked required substantive analysis; withdrawal denied without prejudice |
| Whether court must independently review counsel’s assessment before permitting withdrawal | Williams implicitly relied on counsel to raise merits | Board relied on hearing report presumptive ranges | Court reaffirmed requirement of independent review and concurrence before permitting counsel to withdraw |
| Whether Board’s imposition of 60 months backtime has substantial evidence support (procedural posture) | Williams contended backtime excessive | Board relied on convictions and presumptive ranges in its hearing report | Court did not reach merits due to procedural deficiency in counsel’s filing |
| Whether counsel complied with procedural obligations to notify client and provide options | Williams had not sought substitute counsel or filed brief | Counsel served Williams with the no-merit letter and notice of rights | Court found notice provided but substantive Turner content was inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (Turner no-merit requirements described)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal and no-merit letters)
- Hont v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 680 A.2d 47 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (counsel must fully comply with Turner and court must concur)
- Reavis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 909 A.2d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (counsel must notify parolee of withdrawal request and provide no-merit letter)
- Flowers v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 987 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (scope of appellate review in parole revocation actions)