J.L. Durham v. PBPP, 1338 C.D. 2016

Durham was paroled in 2007 and lived in several community corrections programs (Gaudenzia‑Sienna House, Wernersville Penn Cap, Capitol Pavilion); he later had multiple recommitments as a technical and convicted parole violator and received additional criminal sentence in 2013.
The Board granted credit for the Penn Cap period but denied credit for time at Gaudenzia‑Sienna House (Nov 5–Dec 4, 2007) and for time at Harrisburg Community Corrections Center (May 10–Aug 12, 2010); the Board’s denial of credit for those two periods was memorialized in a Feb. 5, 2016 decision.
Durham administratively appealed; after the Board denied relief, he filed a pro se petition for review in this Court and the Court appointed the Cumberland County Public Defender to represent him.
Appointed counsel filed a petition to withdraw accompanied by a no‑merit letter (Turner/Anders style), asserting the appeal was without merit, but the no‑merit letter was addressed to the Court (not shown served on Durham), lacked a certificate of service, and provided minimal analysis on the preserved backtime‑credit issues.
The Court found counsel failed to meet the technical requirements for withdrawal (service and adequate analysis) and therefore denied leave to withdraw without prejudice, deferred consideration of the merits, and gave counsel 30 days to refile a proper petition to withdraw or to file a merits brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appointed counsel satisfied technical requirements to withdraw	Counsel submitted a no‑merit letter and petition to withdraw	Board did not contest procedural posture; Court must review counsel’s compliance with Turner/Anders requirements	Counsel failed to serve the no‑merit letter on Durham and did not provide sufficient analytical explanation; leave to withdraw denied without prejudice
Whether Durham was entitled to backtime credit for time at Gaudenzia‑Sienna House and Harrisburg CCC	Durham contended he met the standard for credit for time spent in community corrections/facilities	Board denied credit, finding Durham did not meet his burden under the applicable standard	Court did not reach the merits because counsel’s withdrawal was procedurally defective; merits deferred pending proper brief or refiled petition

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for appointed counsel seeking to withdraw where constitutional right to counsel exists)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for a Turner no‑merit letter where only statutory right to counsel exists)
Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 120 A.3d 1116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (burden for parolee to obtain backtime credit for time in community corrections)
Seilhamer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 996 A.2d 40 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (no‑merit letter must analyze why preserved issues are meritless)
Jefferson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 705 A.2d 513 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (court will not independently evaluate merits until counsel satisfies technical withdrawal requirements)