E.O. Buxo v. PPB, 1202 C.D. 2020

In 2012 Buxo pleaded guilty to carrying a firearm without a license and admitted parole violations; he received an aggregate 4–9 year sentence and was paroled on January 20, 2017.
In late 2017 he was arrested on drug-related charges, waived a parole-revocation hearing and counsel, later pleaded guilty to related offenses, and the Board revoked his parole in 2018, ordering 24 months backtime (initial PV maximum date April 3, 2021).
On May 26, 2020 the Board recomputed the parole-violation maximum date to June 21, 2021, denied credit for time at liberty on parole because of unresolved drug/alcohol issues, but separately awarded 556 days of backtime credit.
Buxo challenged the recalculation, asserting he was entitled to credit for all time served exclusively on the Board’s warrant (i.e., custody credit). Counsel entered and petitioned for review on Buxo’s behalf; counsel later moved to withdraw and submitted a “no-merit” letter addressing only denial of credit for time at liberty.
The court found counsel’s no-merit letter deficient because it failed to address the petition’s sole issue (credit for time in custody), denied the withdrawal without prejudice, and ordered counsel to file an amended no-merit letter or a merits brief within 30 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board failed to grant credit for all time served exclusively to its warrant (custody credit)	Buxo: entitled to credit for time held solely on the Board’s detainer/warrant	Board: declined to grant full custody credit in recalculation; gave limited additional credit and relied on administrative rules	Court did not reach the merits; required counsel to address this claim in an amended no-merit letter or merits brief
Whether counsel’s no-merit letter met Turner/Zerby withdrawal standards	Counsel: appeal frivolous; no-merit because Board gave a sufficiently specific reason to deny credit for time at liberty	Procedural posture: Board decision stands unless petitioner successfully challenges calculation; court requires counsel to demonstrate review satisfied Turner/Zerby	Court held the no-merit letter was deficient for failing to address the actual issue raised in the petition; withdrawal denied without prejudice and counsel ordered to file amended no-merit or a brief

Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (standard for counsel withdrawal when appeal lacks merit)
Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (requirements for a no-merit letter and counsel’s duties)
Smoak v. Talaber, 193 A.3d 1160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (Board’s discretion to deny credit for time at liberty under Section 6138)
Wesley v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 614 A.2d 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (court’s independent review following counsel’s compliance)
Frankhouser v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 598 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (same—basis for independent review)
Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 977 A.2d 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (distinguishing no-merit letter and Anders brief requirements)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standard for withdrawal when a constitutional right to counsel exists)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (when counsel is constitutionally required in parole revocation proceedings)