J. Berrios v. PA BPP
J. Berrios v. PA BPP - 905 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Petitioner Jorge Berrios was paroled from a 7–15 year sentence for third‑degree murder and later recommitted as a convicted parole violator (CPV) after new drug convictions.
- After an initial reparole, Berrios was arrested on new drug charges (June 20, 2014), pled guilty (June 23, 2015), and was sentenced on September 4, 2015 to 1½–3 years plus probation.
- The Board issued a detainer when bail was unposted, held revocation proceedings (Berrios admitted the violation and waived a hearing), and recomitted him as a CPV to serve 18 months backtime with no credit for time at liberty on parole.
- The Board began Berrios’ backtime on December 8, 2015 (date of recommitment) rather than September 4, 2015 (date of criminal sentence) and calculated a new maximum release date of November 29, 2022.
- Berrios sought administrative relief, raising two issues: (1) the proper start date for backtime (Dec. 8, 2015 v. Sept. 4, 2015), and (2) whether the Board abused its discretion by denying credit for time at liberty on parole.
- Counsel filed a Petition to Withdraw and an Anders brief, but the court found the brief failed to address Berrios’ specific claims and contained drafting errors; the Court denied counsel’s withdrawal without prejudice and gave 30 days to cure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper start date for backtime | Berrios: backtime should start Sept. 4, 2015 (criminal sentence date) | Board: backtime properly began Dec. 8, 2015 (date of recommitment/availability) | Court did not rule on merits; remanded by denying counsel's withdrawal for inadequate brief so merits not decided |
| Credit for time at liberty on parole | Berrios: Board abused discretion by denying credit for time at liberty | Board: declined to credit time at liberty consistent with parole condition and detainer timing | Court did not rule on merits; same procedural disposition as above |
| Adequacy of counsel's Anders/no‑merit submission | Berrios (implicitly): counsel should advocate the issues raised | Counsel: filed Anders brief and sought to withdraw | Court: Anders brief/no‑merit submission inadequate—did not address petitioner’s specific claims; withdrawal denied without prejudice |
| Counsel's procedural obligations on withdrawal | N/A | Counsel must follow Turner/Anders procedures and notify client of rights | Court required counsel to file amended application and substantively comply with precedents within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (requirements for no‑merit letter when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawal)
- Hont v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 680 A.2d 47 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (need for full compliance with Turner before withdrawal)
- Reavis v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 909 A.2d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (counsel must notify parolee of withdrawal request and provide Anders or no‑merit materials)
- Fisher v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 62 A.3d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (scope of appellate review of Board’s denial of administrative relief)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel filing brief when case appears frivolous)
- Seilhamer v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 996 A.2d 40 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (Anders brief may substitute for no‑merit letter if it meets substantive requirements)