IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Casey Williams, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 337 C.D. 2017

Respondent : Submitted: September 1, 2017

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: December 13, 2017

Casey Williams (Williams), an inmate at State Correctional Institution –

Houtzdale, petitions this Court for review of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and 

Parole’s (Board) February 24, 2017 decision denying his request for administrative 

relief. Williams’ counsel, Assistant Public Defender Daniel C. Bell, Esquire (Counsel) 

has filed a Petition for Withdrawal of Appearance (Withdrawal Petition) and submitted 

a no-merit letter in support thereof. After review, we deny Counsel’s Withdrawal 

Petition.

On August 16, 2005, Williams was paroled from a 4 to 10-year sentence 

for the manufacture, sale, delivery or possession with the intent to deliver a controlled 

substance (PWID), possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug 

paraphernalia. Williams was released to an approved home plan in New York, and was 

placed under the active compact supervision of the New York parole authorities. At 

that time, Williams’ maximum sentence release date was February 2, 2011. 
2

On May 22, 2007, Williams was arrested by the New York Police

Department for criminal possession of marijuana (Possession Charge). On June 24, 

2007, the Possession Charge was non-processed because the District Attorney’s Office 

declined to prosecute the case. On June 15, 2008, the Allentown Police Department 

arrested Williams for simple assault and harassment. On June 16, 2008, the Board 

lodged a detainer. On July 22, 2008, the charges were dismissed. On December 12, 

2008, the Allentown Police Department arrested Williams for carrying a firearm 

without a license and not being permitted to possess a firearm. On December 13, 2008, 

the Board lodged a detainer. On December 30, 2008, Williams signed a waiver of his 

rights to a detention hearing, counsel and a panel hearing. On January 8, 2009, the 

second Board member voted to recommit Williams as a technical parole violator for 

leaving New York without permission and being arrested on firearms charges. The 

Board sentenced Williams to 12 months of backtime.

On February 18, 2009, a federal indictment was issued against Williams 

for one count of conspiracy to distribute crack, four counts of crack distribution, one 

count of aiding and abetting crack distribution, and one count as a felon in possession 

of a weapon. On April 4, 2011, Williams pled guilty to the federal charges. On June 

19, 2013, Williams was sentenced to a concurrent 96-month term of imprisonment and 

six years of supervised release for the drug charges, and to a concurrent term of 96 

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for the firearms charge. 

Williams was returned to the Department of Corrections’ custody on December 1, 

2015. On March 2, 2016, Williams was recommitted as a convicted parole violator 

and sentenced to serve 60 months of backtime concurrently with his January 2009 

technical parole violation sentence. 

On April 28, 2016, Williams filed an Administrative Remedies Form

seeking reconsideration of his recommitment backtime. See Administrative Remedies

Form Attachment, Certified Record (C.R.) at 159. By February 24, 2017 decision, the 
3

Board denied his administrative appeal. Williams appealed from the Board’s decision 

to this Court.1 On June 19, 2017, Counsel filed a Withdrawal Petition and no-merit 

letter. On June 23, 2017, this Court ordered that Counsel’s Withdrawal Petition be

considered along with the merits of Williams’ appeal.

This Court has held that in order to withdraw, “counsel . . . must provide 

a ‘no-merit’ letter which details ‘the nature and extent of [counsel’s] review and list 

each issue the petitioner wished to have raised, with counsel’s explanation of why those 

issues are meritless.’” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 961 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927, 928 (Pa. 1988)). “[C]ounsel must 

fully comply with the procedures outlined in Turner to ensure that each of the 

petitioner’s claims has been considered and that counsel has [] substantive reason[s] 

for concluding that those claims are meritless.” Hont v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 680 

A.2d 47, 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Counsel is also required to “notify the parolee of his 

request to withdraw, furnish the parolee with [] a copy of . . . [the] no-merit letter 

satisfying the requirements of Turner, and inform the parolee of his right to retain new 

counsel or submit a brief on his own behalf.” Reavis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 909 

A.2d 28, 33 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). This Court must then “conduct its own independent 

review of the petition to withdraw and must concur in counsel’s assessment before [it] 

may grant counsel leave to withdraw.” Hont, 680 A.2d at 48.

Here, Counsel served Williams with Counsel’s no-merit letter and 

Withdrawal Petition, and notified Williams that he may either obtain substitute counsel 

or file a brief on his own behalf.2 However, Counsel’s no-merit letter lacks the requisite 

substantive content. In his Administrative Remedies Form, Williams, for a myriad of 

 

1

“Our review in a parole revocation action is limited to determining whether the findings were 

supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether the Board 

committed an error of law.” Flowers v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 987 A.2d 1269, 1271 n.3 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2010).

2 Williams did not obtain substitute counsel or file a brief.
4

personal reasons, merely “ask[ed] the [B]oard to reconsider” his “5 year 

[recommitment sentence.]” Administrative Remedies Form, C.R. at 159. The petition 

for review filed by Counsel with this Court “asks that this Honorable Court review the

amount of back-time imposed as being in excess of the presumptive ranges.” Petition 

for Review at 2. 

In the no-merit letter, Counsel restates that Williams is seeking “the

Court[’]s review of the amount of backtime imposed as being in excess of the 

presumptive ranges.” Counsel’s No-Merit Letter at 3. Counsel addressed that issue by

stating: “[Williams’] plea of guilty to PWID counts one through six carries a 

presumptive recommitment range of eighteen to twenty-four months [for] each count[,]

while count seven carries a presumptive recommitment range of twelve to eighteen 

months. 37 Pa. Code § 75.2.” Counsel’s No-Merit Letter at 3. Counsel provided no 

further explanation as to the exact charges or how he determined the applicable 

presumptive ranges, other than citing to a page from the Board’s January 26, 2016 

Hearing Report, “C.R. at 141,” id., wherein the Board merely listed the first six counts 

as convictions for “PWID F” and wrote in “18-24m” as the presumptive range for each. 

C.R. at 141. Counsel concluded, based solely on the Board’s Hearing Report, that 

“[Williams’] aggravated[3] presumptive range is calculated at eighteen (18) to one 

hundred sixty-two (162) months.4(C[.]R[.] at [] 141) Therefore, the Parole Board’s 

imposition of sixty (60) months backtime is within [its] discretion[,] and there appears 

[to be] substantial evidence to support the backtime.” Counsel’s No-Merit letter at 4. 

Based on the foregoing, Counsel did not address Williams’ issue with sufficient detail 

 

3

It appears that Counsel meant to write “aggregate,” as opposed to “aggravated,” as there is 

no aggravated range, only “[Convicted Parole Violator] Aggravation,” i.e., aggravating factors, 

which the Board left blank. C.R. at 141. 

4 Even if Counsel’s/the Board’s presumptive ranges are correct, the aggregate range would be 

120 to 162 months rather than 18 to 162 months.
5

to provide a substantive reason for concluding that Williams’ claim was meritless. 

Hont. Without that information, this Court cannot “concur in [C]ounsel’s assessment.” 

Id. at 48. As a result, Counsel’s no-merit letter failed to fully comply with the Turner

requirements. Id.

Accordingly, Counsel’s Withdrawal Petition is denied without prejudice. 

Counsel has 30 days to either file an amended Withdrawal Petition and no-merit letter 

that adequately addresses the issue raised in Williams’ request for administrative relief, 

or to submit a brief on the merits. 

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Casey Williams, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 337 C.D. 2017

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Withdrawal 

of Appearance (Withdrawal Petition) filed by Assistant Public Defender Daniel C. Bell, 

Esquire (Counsel) is DENIED. Counsel is granted 30 days from the date of this Order 

to either file an amended Withdrawal Petition and no-merit letter, or to submit a brief 

on the merits.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge