M. Seward v. PA BPP, 199 C.D. 2016

Petitioner Marvin Seward sought review of the Board of Probation and Parole’s October 7, 2015 order recommitting him for 18 months of backtime and recalculating his maximum sentence to January 5, 2018.
Seward filed a pro se petition raising two substantive issues: (1) denial of credit for time in custody as a technical parole violator (Sept. 19, 2014–Mar. 19, 2015); and (2) denial of credit for time spent at liberty on parole.
The Board denied Seward’s administrative appeal; the matter proceeded to this Court with appointed counsel (Assistant Public Defender Seth E. Grant).
Counsel filed an Anders brief and a petition to withdraw as appointed counsel; the Court treated the filing in light of no-merit letter requirements applicable to statutory-right cases.
The Court found counsel satisfied procedural withdrawal steps (notice, providing documents, advising on rights) but failed to satisfy substantive no-merit requirements because counsel did not (a) list and analyze all issues Seward raised (omitted the technical-parole-credit issue), and (b) address the Supreme Court allowance of appeal in Pittman and its possible effect.
The Court denied counsel’s petition to withdraw without prejudice and gave counsel 30 days to file an amended petition with an adequate no-merit letter or a merits brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Seward was wrongly denied credit for custody time as a technical parole violator (Sept 19, 2014–Mar 19, 2015)	Seward contends he should receive credit for that custody period.	Board implicitly contends credit was not owed under its recalculation.	Court did not reach the merits because counsel failed to address this issue in the no-merit/Anders submission; issue must be addressed in renewed filing.
Whether Seward was wrongly denied credit for time spent at liberty on parole	Seward argues he was entitled to credit for time at liberty on parole.	Board disputes entitlement under its recalculation.	Court did not decide merits; counsel’s brief addressed this issue but failed to analyze potential impact of Pittman, so withdrawal denied.
Whether appointed counsel may withdraw via Anders/no-merit filing	Seward (by implication) expects appointed counsel to adequately represent and/or proceed to merits if counsel cannot justify withdrawal.	Counsel filed Anders brief and petition to withdraw, asserting no-merit.	Court held counsel met procedural withdrawal requirements but failed substantive no-merit requirements; withdrawal denied without prejudice and counsel given 30 days to cure.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel’s withdrawal when claiming lack of meritorious issues)
Seilhamer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 996 A.2d 40 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (treating Anders brief as substitute for no-merit letter when substantive no-merit requirements met)
Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 77 A.3d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (procedural requirements for counsel’s withdrawal)
Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (no-merit letter must state scope of review, issues, and reasons they lack merit)
Reavis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 909 A.2d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (no-merit letter standards)
Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 131 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (grant of allowance of appeal by PA Supreme Court noted as potentially relevant)
Hughes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 977 A.2d 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (distinguishing constitutional vs. statutory right to counsel in parole-revocation contexts)
Zerby v. Shannon, 964 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (counsel must include issues even if unlikely to prevail and explain why they are meritless)
Banks v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 827 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (substantial explanation required in no-merit letters)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (distinguishing Anders vs. no-merit letter when right to counsel statutory)