IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John Meyer, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1228 C.D. 2019

: Submitted: February 14, 2020

Public Defender’s Office, :

Luzerne County :

Steven M. Greenwald, Esquire, :

Chief Public Defender :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: October 29, 2020

John Meyer, pro se, appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Luzerne County (trial court) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. On appeal, 

Meyer argues that he has a right to the assistance of counsel in all parole proceedings, 

including at his parole interview. He contends that the trial court erred in denying 

his mandamus action. We affirm.

Meyer is currently confined at the State Correctional Institution in 

Dallas, Pennsylvania. On or about November 25, 2018, Meyer sent an 

“Administrative Complaint” to the Public Defender’s Office. Therein, Meyer 

contended that Chief Public Defender Steven Greenwald and Assistant Public 

Defender Richard Shiptoski refused to grant and “properly and fairly process[]” his

application for representation at parole proceedings. Supplemental Reproduced 

Record at 31a (S.R.R.__). On December 4, 2018, Greenwald responded as follows:
2

While your letter requests that we “file this Administrative 

Complaint” ... “in your files,” we do not maintain any files for 

that purpose. Accordingly, I am returning the documents to you. 

As you are aware, you have no pending proceedings for which 

you are entitled to the appointment of an attorney to represent 

you, from the Public Defender’s Office. While I have read, and 

understand, your Petition for Writ of Mandamus, I believe you 

are misreading the statute and the applicable case law. 

Accordingly, there is presently no obligation for the Public 

Defender’s Office to represent you.

S.R.R. 18a.

Meyer then petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel Greenwald “to 

conduct an administrative hearing” on Meyer’s request “in accordance with 2 Pa. 

C.S.[] §504.”1 Petition at 10, Wherefore Clause; S.R.R. 15a. In the petition, Meyer 

alleged that his Administrative Complaint “stemmed from” his having “a clear and 

legal right to representation during the parole process.” Petition at 3, ¶5; S.R.R. 8a. 

He further averred:

21. The Respondent, Steven M. Greenwald, Esquire, Chief 

Public Defender of the Public Defender’s Office of Luzerne 

County, in his investigation, and letter to [Meyer], dated 

December 4, 2018, does not constitute a valid adjudication to 

[Meyer’s] administrative complaint, dated November 25, 2018.

22. The Respondent, Steven M. Greenwald, Esquire, Chief 

Public Defender of the Public Defender’s Office of Luzerne 

County, didn’t provide [Meyer], with either a notice of a hearing, 

or an opportunity to be heard. 

* * *

1 Procedurally, Meyer filed his petition with this Court. By order dated January 28, 2019, this 

Court transferred the matter to the trial court, explaining that jurisdiction was with that court. On 

February 22, 2019, the petition was assigned to the weekly motions’ court judge. The petition was 

returned to the prothonotary’s office unsigned. On June 7, 2019, Meyer refiled the petition, and 

by order dated July 19, 2019, a rule returnable hearing was scheduled for August 5, 2019.
3

24. The Respondent, Steven M. Greenwald, Esquire, Chief 

Public Defender, of the Public Defender’s Office, Luzerne 

County, adjudication to [Meyer’s] administrative complaint, is a 

violation of [Meyer’s] constitutional rights, and [Steven M. 

Greenwald] committed an error of law, [Steven M. Greenwald’s] 

adjudication is not in accordance with the provisions of the 

Administrative Agency Law[, 2 Pa. C.S. §§501-508, 701-704]. 

Petition at 8-9, ¶¶21-22, 24; S.R.R. 13a-14a. 

The petition averred that Greenwald had a “clear and mandatory duty 

to provide [him] with an administrative hearing, under the Administrative Agency 

Law[.]” Petition at 10, ¶27; S.R.R. 15a. The petition sought an order requiring:

Steven M. Greenwald, Esquire, Chief Public Defender, of the 

Public Defender’s Office of Luzerne County, to conduct an 

administrative hearing for [Meyer], in accordance with [2 Pa. 

C.S. §504].

Id.

The Public Defender’s Office moved to strike Meyer’s petition. 

Therein, the Public Defender’s Office contended that the trial court was “devoid of 

jurisdiction” because the “December 4, 2018 letter [did] not constitute an 

adjudication within [the Administrative] Agency Law for which notice and hearing 

were required because [Meyer] [did] not have a right to appointed counsel during 

parole release hearings.” Public Defender’s Motion at 4, ¶17; S.R.R. 22a. 

On August 7, 2019, the trial court denied the petition, and Meyer 

appealed. In his Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal filed under PA.

R.A.P. 1925(b), Meyer contended that the trial court erred in denying his petition 

because he has a statutory right to the assistance of counsel at parole proceedings. 
4

Before this Court,

2 Meyer argues that the trial court erred in denying

his petition because the Public Defender Act3 guarantees him assistance of counsel 

in parole proceedings. The Public Defender’s Office responds that Meyer is not 

entitled to counsel during parole interview proceedings and, further, the office does 

not have a “mandatory ministerial duty” to provide Meyer representation in parole 

release proceedings. Public Defender’s Brief at 10. 

We begin with a review of the principles that govern an action in 

mandamus. A writ of mandamus compels a public official’s performance of a 

ministerial act or mandatory duty, not a discretionary act. Africa v. Horn, 701 A.2d 

273, 275 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). “The burden of proof falls upon the party seeking this 

extraordinary remedy to establish his legal right to such relief.” Werner v. Zazyczny, 

681 A.2d 1331, 1335 (Pa. 1996). A party must demonstrate: “a clear legal right for 

performance of an act by the government; a corresponding duty in the government 

to perform the ministerial act and mandatory duty; and the absence of any other 

appropriate or adequate remedy.” Chester Community Charter School v. 

Department of Education, 996 A.2d 68, 75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). “A mandatory duty 

is ‘one which a public officer is required to perform upon a given state of facts and 

in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority.’” Id. (citing 

Filippi v. Kwitowski, 880 A.2d 711, 713 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)). 

In the petition, Meyer asserts that Section 504 of the Administrative 

Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §504, requires the Public Defender’s Office to provide him 

with a hearing. The Administrative Agency Law provides “hearing rights in 

2 This Court’s review of a trial court’s order in an action in mandamus determines whether the trial 

court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Williams v. Worley, 847 A.2d 134, 137 

n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). 

3 Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1144, as amended, 16 P.S. §§9960.1-9960.13.
5

connection with adjudications affecting substantive state-created personal or 

property interests.” Skelly v. Dickman, 537 A.2d 98, 100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). 

Specifically, Section 504 provides, in pertinent part:

No adjudication of a Commonwealth agency shall be valid as to 

any party unless he shall have been afforded reasonable notice of 

a hearing and an opportunity to be heard.

2 Pa. C.S. §504. A Commonwealth agency is “[a]ny executive agency or 

independent agency.” 2 Pa. C.S. §101. An executive agency is “[t]he Governor and 

the departments, boards, commissions, authorities and other officers and agencies of 

the Commonwealth government, but the term does not include any court or other 

officer or agency of the unified judicial system, the General Assembly and its

officers and agencies, or any independent agency.” Id. Independent agencies are 

“[b]oards, commissions, authorities and other agencies and officers of the 

Commonwealth government which are not subject to the policy supervision and 

control of the Governor, but the term does not include any court or other officer or 

agency of the unified judicial system or the General Assembly and its officers and 

agencies.” Id. 

The public defender is appointed by the county. Section 4 of the Public 

Defender Act, 16 P.S. §9960.4. The public defender’s office is not an independent 

agency of the Commonwealth or an executive agency under control of the Governor. 

Meyer’s claim that the Public Defender’s letter of December 4, 2018, constituted an 

“adjudication” is simply wrong. The action, or inaction, of the Public Defender is 

beyond the reach of the Administrative Agency Law. 
6

Meyer also contends that Section 6(a)(10) of the Public Defender Act, 

16 P.S. §9960.6(a)(10),4 gives him a right to the assistance of counsel at parole 

proceedings. Meyer acknowledges that “[a]lthough the Administrative Complaint 

filed with the Public Defender and the [p]etition for a [w]rit of [m]andamus filed in 

the lower court on May 23, 2019 speak of Agency and Administrative Law rights 

related to parole where there are none; when fairly read, Meyer[’]s pleadings request 

the assistance of counsel at a parole release hearing where such counsel may apply 

for such a hearing and sit through same.” Meyer’s Brief at 14, n.1. 

Meyer’s petition requested a writ of mandamus to compel the Public 

Defender “to conduct an administrative hearing for [him] in accordance with 2 Pa. 

C.S.[] §504.” Petition at 10; S.R.R. 15a. The petition did not request the 

appointment of counsel. A trial court generally exceeds its authority if it grants relief 

outside that requested. See, e.g., Williams Township Board of Supervisors v. 

Williams Township Emergency Company, Inc., 986 A.2d 914, 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2009) (holding that a trial court may not grant relief that exceeds the relief 

requested). Therefore, even if Meyer had a statutory right to counsel at parole 

proceedings, that relief was not requested in the petition and was beyond the 

authority of the trial court to grant. 

4 Section 6(a)(10) provides:

(a) The public defender shall be responsible for furnishing legal counsel, in the 

following types of cases, to any person who, for lack of sufficient funds, is unable 

to obtain legal counsel:

* * *

(10) Probation and parole proceedings and revocation thereof[.]

16 P.S. §9960.6(a)(10).
7

For these reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying 

Meyer’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

 _____________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John Meyer, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1228 C.D. 2019

:

Public Defender’s Office, :

Luzerne County :

Steven M. Greenwald, Esquire, :

Chief Public Defender :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2020, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Luzerne County dated August 7, 2019, in the above-captioned 

matter is AFFIRMED.

 _____________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge