IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Logan Jesse Oprisko, :

:

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 1248 C.D. 2021

: Submitted: July 15, 2022

Pennsylvania Parole Board, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: August 29, 2022

Logan Jesse Oprisko (Parolee) petitions for review of the Pennsylvania 

Parole Board (Board) order dismissing as untimely his Petition for Administrative 

Review challenging the Board’s August 28, 2020 decision, which denied his release 

on parole/reparole and stated that his parole violation maximum date was September 

10, 2025. Also, before us is an Application to Withdraw as Counsel (Application) 

filed by Parolee’s court-appointed attorney, Kent D. Watkins, Esquire (Attorney 

Watkins), on the ground that Parolee’s appeal is without merit. We grant Attorney 

Watkins’ Application and affirm the Board’s order. 

Parolee is serving an aggregate 3- to 10-year sentence based upon his 

guilty pleas to two counts of robbery. Certified Record (CR) at 1-2. With an 
2

effective date of November 5, 2012, Parolee’s minimum sentence was set to expire 

on November 5, 2015, and his maximum sentence was set to expire on November 5, 

2022. Id. On November 8, 2015, Parolee was released on parole. Id. at 7.

On March 21, 2016, the Board declared Parolee delinquent as of March 

4, 2016. CR at 16. On April 2, 2017, the Board issued a Warrant to Commit and 

Detain Parolee, and he was returned to custody that day. Id. at 17, 23. On June 30, 

2017, the Board mailed a decision revoking Parolee’s parole as a technical parole 

violator (TPV), and recommitting him to serve up to six months in a community 

correction center/community correction facility/parole violator center. Id. at 20-22. 

That decision also recalculated Parolee’s maximum date to be December 4, 2023. 

Id. On July 15, 2017, Parolee was again released on parole. Id. at 23.

On July 19, 2017, the Board issued a decision declaring Parolee 

delinquent as of July 16, 2017, the day following his release on parole, because he 

had absconded. CR at 32-33. On August 17, 2017, the Board issued a Warrant to 

Commit and Detain Parolee, and he was returned to custody that day. Id. at 34, 39. 

On August 17, 2017, Parolee was arrested by the Scranton Police Department and 

charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another 

person, and making repairs to an offensive weapon. Id. at 39. Parolee did not post 

the bail imposed on the new charges. Id. at 81. On August 28, 2017, Parolee waived 

his right to counsel and a hearing on the purported violations of the technical 

conditions of his parole. Id. at 37. By decision mailed October 23, 2017, the Board 

recommitted Parolee as a TPV, to be reparoled after six months, and recalculated his

parole violation maximum date to be January 5, 2024. Id. at 63, 65-67.

Meanwhile, on September 20, 2017, Parolee pleaded guilty to the new 

felony aggravated assault charge. CR at 82. On November 28, 2017, Parolee was 
3

sentenced to a 20- to 60-month period of imprisonment and a three-year probationary 

term on his new conviction. Id. at 103. He received a credit of 104 days on his new 

sentence. Id. at 104.

Based on the new conviction, on October 2, 2017, the Board filed a 

Notice of Charges and Hearing for another revocation hearing as a convicted parole 

violator (CPV). CR at 68. On October 5, 2017, Parolee waived the revocation 

hearing and his right to counsel, and admitted to the parole violation. Id. at 69-70. 

As a result, on January 16, 2018, the Board mailed a decision recommitting Parolee 

as a CPV to serve 36 months backtime, and modified its October 23, 2017 decision 

by deleting the reparole provision. Id. at 109. The Board’s decision also denied 

credit for the time that Parolee was at liberty on parole due to the new felony 

conviction,

1

stated that he is not eligible for reparole until November 28, 2020, and 

1 Section 6138(a)(1), (2), and (2.1) of the Prisons and Parole Code states, in pertinent part:

(1) The board may, at its discretion, revoke the parole of a paroled 

offender if the offender, during the period of parole or while 

delinquent on parole, commits a crime punishable by imprisonment, 

. . . to which the offender pleads guilty . . . at any time thereafter in 

a court of record.

* * *

(2) If the offender’s parole is revoked, the offender shall be 

recommitted to serve the remainder of the term which the offender 

would have been compelled to serve had the parole not been granted 

and, except as provided under paragraph (2.1), shall be given no 

credit for the time at liberty on parole.

(2.1) The board may, in its discretion, award credit to an offender 

recommitted under paragraph (2) for the time spent at liberty on 

parole . . . .

61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(1), (2), (2.1).
4

recalculated his maximum parole violation date to be September 10, 2025. Id. at 

109-10.2

2 The Board’s decision also stated the following, in relevant part:

THIS DECISION INVOLVES AN ISSUE THAT IS SUBJECT TO 

THE BOARD’S ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROCESS. 

SEE 37 PA. CODE SEC. 73. FAILURE TO 

ADMINISTRATIVELY APPEAL THE DECISION MAY 

AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL 

THIS DECISION, YOU MUST FILE A REQUEST FOR 

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF WITH THE BOARD WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE MAILING DATE OF THIS 

DECISION. THIS REQUEST SHALL SET FORTH 

SPECIFICALLY THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES FOR 

THE ALLEGATIONS. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN 

ATTORNEY IN THIS APPEAL AND IN ANY SUBSEQUENT 

APPEAL TO THE COMMONWEALTH COURT. YOU MAY BE 

ENTITLED TO COUNSEL FROM THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S 

OFFICE AT NO COST.

CR at 110. See also Section 6113(d)(1) of the Prisons and Parole Code, 61 Pa. C.S. § 6113(d)(1)

(“An interested party may appeal a revocation decision within 30 days of the board’s order. The 

decision shall be reviewed by three board members appointed by the chairperson or the 

chairperson’s designee.”). As this Court has explained:

“[T]he appeal process available to an inmate who seeks the 

recalculation of his maximum [] date is found [in Section 73.1(b)(1) 

of the Board’s Regulations,] 37 Pa. Code §73.1(b)(1).” Evans v.

[Department of Corrections], 713 A.2d 741, 743 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1998). Prisoners may petition for administrative relief within 30 

days of the mailing date of the Board’s decision. See 37 Pa. Code 

§73.1(b)(1). “[P]etitions for administrative review which are out of 

time . . . will not be received.” 37 Pa. Code §73.1(b)(3). Thus, when 

a prisoner filing a request for administrative relief does not meet the 

30-day deadline, the request will be dismissed as untimely.

Smeltzer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1049 C.D. 2019, filed 

August 19, 2020), slip op. at 3-4; see also Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (“As used in this rule, ‘nonprecedential decision’ refers to . . . an unreported memorandum opinion of the Commonwealth 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
5

On August 28, 2020, the Board issued a decision denying parole based 

on the following reasons: (1) Parolee’s institutional behavior; (2) his risk and needs 

assessment indicating his level of risk to the community; (3) the negative 

recommendation by the Department of Corrections; (4) his prior unsatisfactory 

parole supervision history; (5) reports, evaluations, and assessments/level of risk 

indicates his level of risk to society; and (6) his minimization/denial of the nature 

and circumstances of the offense(s) committed. CR at 111. The Board’s parole 

denial decision also stated that Parolee’s parole violation maximum date remained 

September 10, 2025, as recalculated in the Board’s prior January 16, 2018 

recommitment decision. Id. at 111-12.

On September 8, 2020, Parolee submitted a Petition for Administrative 

Review to the Board appealing its parole denial decision stating, in relevant part:

I was sentenced to 3 [to] 10 [years], which I served at [the 

State Correctional Institution (SCI) at] Mahanoy [for] a 

total of 3 y[ears and] 3 days[. I was] released on parole on 

11/18/15 with 7 years back time. With only 2 months 

[street] time[,] my max[imum] date was pushed back to 

12/4/23 due to delinquency[.] I served 3 months in SCI 

Waymart before being reparoled and returning as a CPV 

with 1 month of delinquency pushing my max[imum] date 

back 1 month to 1/5/24[.] If you take my 2 months [street] 

time[,] my max[imim] date should be 3/5/24. There’s a 

miscalculation because it says I have 7 y[ears,] 9 m[onths, 

and] 13 d[ays] to [the] max[imum date]. This is wrong[.] 

I served 3 y[ears,] 3 m[onths, and] 3 d[ays] on a 3[- to] 

10[-]y[ear] sentence.

CR at 113. 

Court filed after January 15, 2008. [] Non-precedential decisions . . . may be cited for their 

persuasive value.”). There is no indication in the Certified Record that Parolee appealed the 

Board’s January 16, 2018 recommitment decision that recalculated his maximum date to be 

September 10, 2025.
6

On October 20, 2021, the Board mailed its decision denying Parolee’s 

Petition for Administrative Review, which states, in pertinent part:

First, while the Board’s regulation authorizing 

administrative relief does not apply to decisions denying 

parole, your correspondence made no mention of the 

[August 28, 2020] decision to deny you parole, you only 

attempted to renew your appeal rights from the [January 

16, 2018] decision that recommitted you as a [CPV]. The 

decision to deny you parole is not subject to review or 

reconsideration.

Next, the Board’s regulation provides that petitions 

for administrative review must be received at the Board’s 

central office within 30 days of the mailing date of the 

Board’s decision that revoked parole and/or recalculated 

your maximum date. 37 Pa. Code §73.1. Your request 

was neither received, nor was it submitted to prison 

officials for mailing within the established timeframe. As 

such, your request for relief from the decision [mailed on 

January 16, 2018,] is not properly before the Board and 

cannot be accepted.

Accordingly, your request for relief from the 

decision [mailed on January 16, 2018,] is hereby 

DISMISSED as untimely.

CR at 116-17.

Parolee filed the instant counseled petition for review from this decision 

in which he again claims that the Board erred in its recalculation of his maximum 

date. Shortly thereafter, Attorney Watkins filed the Application along with a nomerit letter based on his belief that Parolee’s appeal is without merit. This matter is 

now before us for disposition.

Counsel seeking to withdraw as appointed counsel must conduct a 

zealous review of the case and submit a no-merit letter to this Court detailing the 

nature and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing the issues the 
7

petitioner wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues lack merit, 

and requesting permission to withdraw. Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927, 

928 (Pa. 1988); Hughes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 977 A.2d 

19, 24-26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2009).3 The no-merit letter must include “‘substantial reasons for concluding that a 

petitioner’s arguments are meritless.’” Zerby, 964 A.2d at 962 (quoting Jefferson v. 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 705 A.2d 513, 514 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1998)). 

In addition, court-appointed counsel who seeks to withdraw 

representation must: (1) notify the petitioner of the request to withdraw; (2) furnish 

the petitioner with a copy of a brief or no-merit letter; and (3) advise the petitioner 

of his right to retain new counsel or raise any new points that he might deem worthy 

of consideration. Turner, 544 A.2d at 928; Hughes, 977 A.2d at 22. If counsel 

satisfies these technical requirements, this Court must then conduct an independent 

review of the merits of the case. Turner, 544 A.2d at 928; Hughes, 977 A.2d at 25. 

If this Court determines the petitioner’s claims are without merit, counsel will be 

permitted to withdraw, and the petitioner will be denied relief. Turner, 544 A.2d at 

928; Hughes, 977 A.2d at 27. 

Upon review, Attorney Watkins’ no-merit letter satisfies the technical 

requirements of Turner. Attorney Watkins states that he conducted an exhaustive 

3 Where there is a constitutional right to counsel, court-appointed counsel seeking to 

withdraw must submit a brief in accord with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), referred 

to as an Anders brief, that: (i) provides a summary of the procedural history and facts, with 

citations to the record; (ii) refers to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports 

the appeal; (iii) sets forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (iv) states counsel’s 

reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 

361 (Pa. 2009); Hughes, 977 A.2d at 25-26. Where, as here, the petitioner has only a statutory, 

rather than a constitutional, right to counsel, appointed counsel may submit a no-merit letter 

instead of an Anders brief. Hughes, 977 A.2d at 25-26.
8

examination of the Certified Record and research of the applicable case law. He set 

forth a procedural history of the case and the basis for the appeal. Attorney Watkins 

provided a thorough analysis as to why Parolee’s appeal of the Board’s August 28, 

2020 decision denying parole lacks merit, complete with citations to the Certified 

Record and the relevant case law. 

Based on his review, Attorney Watkins concludes that Parolee’s appeal 

to this Court is without merit, and he requests permission to withdraw as counsel. 

Attorney Watkins provided Parolee with a copy of the no-merit letter and his request 

to withdraw. He advised Parolee of his right to retain new counsel or proceed by 

representing himself.4 As we are satisfied that Attorney Watkins has discharged his 

responsibility in complying with the technical requirements to withdraw from 

representation, we shall conduct an independent review to determine whether 

Parolee’s petition for review lacks merit.5

As outlined above, in his instant Petition for Administrative Review, 

Parolee sought to file an untimely appeal of the Board’s recalculation of his parole 

violation maximum date in the January 16, 2018 decision that recommitted him as a 

CPV via a timely appeal of the Board’s August 28, 2020 decision denying him 

parole. As indicated by the Board, Parolee’s failure to timely appeal the January 16, 

2018 Board decision recalculating his parole violation maximum date resulted in a 

waiver of his claim of error that cannot be revived in a subsequent administrative 

appeal to the Board. Indeed, as this Court explained in a similar circumstance:

4 Parolee did not retain new counsel or file a brief in support of his petition for review. 

5 Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether 

the adjudication was in accordance with law, and whether necessary findings were supported by 

substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Miskovitch 

v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 77 A.3d 66, 70 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
9

First, [the parolee] argues that the Board erred when it 

recalculated her maximum sentence date on her OG5836 

sentence because it made several “arithmetic errors.” 

[Parolee’s] Brief at 18. [The parolee] argues that the 

Board’s November 18, 2004 decision recalculating her 

maximum sentence date on her OG5836 sentence was 

“unsubstantiated” and the errors in this decision have 

carried forward into subsequent decisions relating to her 

OG5836 sentence. Id. at 18-20. However, the issue before 

this Court is whether the Board erred in its May 7, 2019 

decision to recalculate the maximum sentence date on [the 

parolee’s] OL1972 sentence. [The parolee] did not timely 

petition the Board for review of its decisions recalculating 

her maximum sentence date on her OG5836 sentence, that 

is, the November 18, 2004 decision or the February 14, 

2013 decision. Therefore, [the parolee] waived her right 

to challenge those decisions and cannot do so now. See 

Wright v. P[ennsylvania] B[oard] of Prob[ation and]

Parole, 743 A.2d 1004, 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (holding 

that parolee waived challenge to Board’s recalculation of 

her maximum sentence date where she failed to file a 

petition for review from the Board’s order).

Taylor v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 693 C.D. 

2019, filed July 17, 2020), slip op. at 7-8; see also Wright v. Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 165 C.D. 2019, filed August 8, 2019), slip 

op. at 8 (“[The parolee] failed to file a timely request for administrative review of 

the Board’s May 25, 2018 order. Therefore, he waived any objection to either the 

Board’s recalculation of his maximum sentence date or its failure to recalculate his 

minimum parole eligibility date.”) (citation omitted); Arthur v. Pennsylvania Board 

of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1835 C.D. 2014, filed December 23, 

2015), slip op. at 3 (“Because [the parolee] did not timely appeal from the Board’s 

2006 recalculation of his maximum sentence release date to May 25, 2015, and since 

he did not raise his double jeopardy claim to the Board, he has waived those claims 

in this appeal and this Court may not now consider them.”) (footnote omitted).
10

Accordingly, we grant Attorney Watkins’ Application and affirm the 

Board’s order.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Logan Jesse Oprisko, :

:

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 1248 C.D. 2021

:

Pennsylvania Parole Board, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2022, the Application to Withdraw 

as Counsel filed by Logan Jesse Oprisko’s court-appointed attorney, Kent D. 

Watkins, Esquire, is GRANTED, and the order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board 

mailed October 20, 2021, is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge