Com. v. Walters, L., Com. v. Walters, L. No. 279 MDA 2016

Larry L. Walters was convicted by a jury of harassment and originally sentenced to 2–23 months’ imprisonment; the sentence was later determined illegal and on resentencing he received 2–12 months with credit for time served and parole.
Walters filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel while he remained on parole; counsel was appointed and ordered to file an amended petition.
The PCRA court dismissed the petition on January 15, 2016; Walters filed a pro se notice of appeal and later proceeded through counsel on appeal.
Trial/PCRA counsel sought to withdraw under Turner/Finley, filing a no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw; the PCRA court initially permitted withdrawal but this Court vacated that order and treated the no‑merit letter as the brief.
The Superior Court reviewed whether Walters remained eligible for PCRA relief at the time of dismissal (i.e., was he "currently serving" a sentence) and whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley requirements.
The record showed Walters’ sentence expired on April 27, 2015, before the PCRA court’s January 15, 2016 dismissal; the Court affirmed dismissal and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walters was eligible for PCRA relief when the petition was dismissed	Walters argued ineffective assistance; implied eligibility because petition filed while serving sentence	Commonwealth/PCRA court argued Walters was not "currently serving" at time of dismissal so ineligible	Court held Walters was ineligible because his sentence had expired before dismissal, so PCRA relief unavailable
Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley to withdraw	Walters contended counsel ineffective and/or abandoned him on appeal	Counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter, motion to withdraw, sent required notices and option to proceed pro se or retain counsel	Court concluded counsel complied with Turner/Finley and independently reviewed the issues; granted withdrawal
Whether appellate counsel abandoned Walters during appeal	Walters (pro se filings) suggested abandonment	PCRA court twice remanded to determine abandonment; court found counsel still represented Walters	Court accepted that counsel did not abandon Walters and allowed no‑merit letter as brief
Whether the merits of ineffective assistance claims should be addressed despite ineligibility	Walters requested consideration of ineffectiveness claims	Commonwealth argued merits need not be reached because of ineligibility	Court declined to reach merits, dismissing petition on procedural ineligibility

Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (establishes counsel’s obligations when seeking to withdraw)
Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (clarifies Turner procedure for PCRA counsel withdrawal)
Karanicolas v. Commonwealth, 836 A.2d 940 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requires no‑merit letter and court approval for counsel withdrawal under PCRA)
Wrecks v. Commonwealth, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (details content and notice requirements of Turner/Finley no‑merit letters)
Widgins v. Commonwealth, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Court must perform independent review when counsel files a no‑merit letter)
Ahlborn v. Commonwealth, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (holding PCRA relief unavailable if petitioner is not serving a sentence at both pleading and proof stages)
Fisher v. Commonwealth, 703 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1997) (PCRA does not afford relief when only outstanding sentence is payment of fines)