IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael Naylor

, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 557 C.D. 2015

: SUBMITTED: September 25, 2015

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole

, : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge 1

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS

, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: February 9, 2016

Petitioner, Michael Naylor, petitions for review of the order of the

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) denying Petitioner’s petition

for administrative review of the most recent change to his parole violation

maximum sentence date. Additio n a lly, Petitioner’s counsel, Tina M. Fryling,

Esquire, petitions for leave to withdraw her representation, asserting that

Petit i oner’s appeal is meritless. For reasons set forth below, we deny Attorney

Fryling’s petition to withdraw her appearance as couns el.

1 This case was assigned to the opinion writer on or before January 31, 2016, when Judge

Leadbett er assumed the status of senior judge.2 Suffice it to say that , by notice mailed on February 13, 2015, which

ref erenced a Board decision recorded on February 2, 2015, the Board informed

Petitioner of his “recommit[ment] to a state correctional institution as a technical

parole violator to s erve 6 months, and as a convicted parole violator to serve 6

months, concurrently, for a total of 6 months [backtime].” Certified Record, Notice

of Board Decision, mailed February 13, 2015, at 1. Petitioner’s new parole

violation maximum date was listed as August 14, 2018. Petitioner , representing

himself, promptly filed a r equest for a dministrative r eview with the Board , arguing

the Board miscalculated his parole violation maximum date and requesting the

Board to re

- issue an official action providing for a parole violation maximum date

of September 23, 2016 . The Board denied Petitioner’s review request, determining

that the August 14, 2018, parole violation maximum date was correct.

Attorney Fryling filed a petition for review with this Court on

Petitioner’s behalf

, asserting the Board’s imposition of an incorrect parole

violation maximum date

. She also filed a petition for leave to withdraw as counsel

and a Turner letter 2 in support thereof. Pursuant to Turner , counsel aiming to

withdraw from the representation of a petitioner who seeks review of a Board

determination must proffer a “ no

- merit ” letter detailing the nature and extent of

counsel’s review and listing the discrete issues that the petitioner wishes to raise,

with counsel’s reasons why t hose issue lack merit. Zerby v. Shanon , 964 A.2d 956,

961 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (relying on Turner , 544 A.2d at 928). If counsel fails to

satisfy the technical requisites of a no

- merit letter, this Court will deny the

attorney’s request to withdraw representa tion, and we will direct counsel either to

file a new request with supporting documents complying with the technical

2 Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988).3

requisites of a no

- merit letter or a brief advocating on the petitioner’s behalf.

Seilhamer v. P a. Bd

. of Prob

. & P arole , 996 A.2d 40, 43

- 4 4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010);

Zerby , 964 A.2d at 960.

Here, while Attorney Fryling correctly notes in her Turner letter that

Petitioner objects to the recalculation of his parole violation maximum date, she

incorrectly states his maximum date as being September 2 3, 2016, which is

apparently the previous maximum date that Petitioner w ants reinstated. Again,

Petitioner in his request for administrative review to the Board dated February 22,

2015

, object ed to the calculation of his parole violation maximum date as August

14, 2018. Although Attorney Fryling argues that “ [t] he Board’s parole violation

maximum sentence date was calculated correctly,” Turner letter at 3, counsel’s

lack of knowledge regarding Petitioner’s actual parole violation maximum date is

clearly fatal to her withdrawal petition. This Court will not conduct an independent

examination of the merits of Petitioner’s review petition until we are satisfied that

counsel has fully met her obligations pursuant to Turner

.

`

_____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael Naylor, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 557 C.D. 2015

: Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, : Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 201 6

, Tina M. Fryling’s

petition to withdraw as counsel is denied, without prejudice. Counsel is directed to

refile her petition to withdraw or file a brief in support of Michael Naylor’s

petition for review within thirty (30) days of this order.

_____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

Judge