IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Daniel Edwards, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 420 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: October 7, 2016

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and :

Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: January 27, 2017

Before this Court is Kent D. Watkins, Esquire’s (Counsel) Application for 

Leave to Withdraw Appearance (Application to Withdraw) on behalf of Daniel 

Edwards (Edwards). Edwards petitions for review of the September 28, 2015

Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) denying 

Edwards’ Petition for Administrative Review and affirming its Decision mailed

August 24, 2015, recommitting Edwards as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to 

serve 15 months backtime and recalculating Edwards’ maximum sentence date to 

March 25, 2018. Appended to Counsel’s Application to Withdraw is a No-Merit 

Letter, in which Counsel argues that Edwards’ appeal lacks a basis in law or fact 

and is, therefore, without merit. (No-Merit Letter at 1.) Because we conclude that 
2

Counsel’s No-Merit Letter has satisfied the requirements of Commonwealth v. 

Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and agree that Edwards’ appeal is without merit, 

we grant Counsel’s Application to Withdraw and affirm the Board’s Order.

Edwards pleaded guilty to Robbery and was sentenced to serve three years

to seven years, with a minimum date of August 10, 2012 and a maximum date of 

August 10, 2016. (C.R. at 1.) Edwards was released on parole on December 19, 

2013 to a community corrections center, where he remained until on or about 

March 21, 2014. (C.R. at 15, 41.) Thereafter, Edwards was arrested and charged 

with new crimes on August 12 and 13, 2014. (C.R. at 25.) The Board lodged a 

warrant to commit and detain Edwards on August 13, 2014. (C.R. at 16.) Edwards 

did not post bail on the new charges, and he remained confined in a county jail. 

(C.R. at 28.) The Board issued a Notice of Charges and Hearing based on the new 

criminal charges, Edwards waived his rights to counsel and a detention hearing on 

August 27, 2014, and the Board ordered him detained pending the disposition of 

those charges. (C.R. at 42-43, 46.) On March 31, 2015, Edwards pleaded guilty to 

two of the charges and was sentenced to a minimum of 35 months and a maximum 

of 70 months on one charge and 27 months to 54 months on the second, which was

to run concurrently with the first sentence. (C.R. at 19, 35-36.) Edwards was 

returned to the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) on April 10, 2015. 

(C.R. at 79.)

On July 17, 2015, the Board received official verification of the new 

convictions, and it issued a Notice of Charges and Hearing based on those 

convictions. (C.R. at 48-49, 56.) Edwards requested a panel hearing, which was 

held on August 3, 2015, at which Edwards was represented by counsel. (C.R. at 

51, 55-56.) At the hearing, Edwards’ parole agent testified regarding the new 
3

convictions, certified records of the convictions were presented, and Edwards 

acknowledged his convictions. Based on the evidence, the Board voted to 

recommit Edwards to serve 15 months backtime, deny him credit for the time he 

spent at liberty on parole, and change his maximum date from August 10, 2016 to 

March 25, 2018. (C.R. at 58-59, 80.) In recalculating Edwards’ new maximum 

date, the Board used August 3, 2015 as the date he was returned to custody, and it 

did not credit Edwards with any time he spent in the county jail on the new charges

or for the period between April 10, 2015 and August 3, 2015, when he was housed 

in the DOC after his new convictions. (C.R. at 80.) 

Edwards filed a Petition for Administrative Review challenging the Board’s 

decision not to give him credit for his time in custody with the DOC from April 10, 

2015 to August 3, 2015. (C.R. at 84.) By Order mailed September 28, 2015, the 

Board rejected Edwards’ challenge based on Campbell v. Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 980 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980), because Edwards did not 

become available to begin serving time on his original sentence until he had been 

recommitted as a CPV, which the Board indicated occurred on August 3, 2015. 

(C.R. at 87.) The Board further held that Edwards was not entitled to credit against 

his original sentence for his pre-sentence confinement period in county jail 

pursuant to Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 

(Pa. 1980), because he was not detained solely on the Board’s detainer. (C.R. at 

87-88.) Therefore, the Board affirmed its prior Decision. (C.R. at 88.)

Edwards filed a pro se Petition for Review with this Court on March 14, 

2016 and requested that the Court accept it nunc pro tunc. The Board responded 

that it was very possible that Edwards had not been served with a copy of the 

September 28, 2015 Board Order “due to the negligence of a third-party or the 
4

breakdown of the administrative process” and that it did not oppose the filing of 

the Petition for Review nunc pro tunc. (Board’s Answer to Petition for Review ¶¶ 

15, 18.) By Order dated May 17, 2016, this Court granted Edwards’ application 

and accepted Edwards’ Petition for Review nunc pro tunc. In another order issued 

that day, this Court appointed the Public Defender of Schuylkill County to 

represent Edwards in the action and Counsel, on behalf of the Public Defender, 

entered an appearance on Edwards’ behalf on May 27, 2016. Counsel filed an 

Amended Petition for Review on June 1, 2016. Counsel now seeks to withdraw 

his appearance. 

In order to withdraw an appearance, appointed counsel must submit a letter 

which meets the technical requirements of a no-merit or Turner letter. Zerby v. 

Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Com. v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 

717, 720-21 (Pa. Super. 2007)). In Turner, 544 A.2d at 928, our Supreme Court 

stated that, in order to withdraw an appearance, court-appointed counsel must 

submit to the court and to his or her client a no-merit letter in which counsel: (1) 

“detail[s] the nature and extent of [counsel’s] review”; (2) identifies “each issue 

the [client] wished to have raised”; and (3) explains why the issues are meritless. 

Counsel is required to serve this letter and counsel’s application to withdraw on his 

or her client and is further required to inform his or her client of the right to 

proceed pro se or through privately retained counsel. Zerby, 964 A.2d at 960 

(internal quotation omitted). “[A] no-merit letter must substantively address each 

of the petitioner’s arguments, rather than baldly stating that the claims are without 

merit.” Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 977 A.2d 19, 25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2009) (citing Hill v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 707 A.2d 1214, 1215-16 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1998)). The purpose of a Turner letter is to: (1) ensure that counsel has 
5

“carefully” discharged his or her duty to his or her client; and (2) to enable “our 

independent examination of the merits of the appeal.” Seilhamer v. Pa. Bd. of 

Prob. and Parole, 996 A.2d 40, 44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citing Presley v. Pa. Bd. of 

Prob. and Parole, 737 A.2d 858, 861-62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)). Only if Counsel’s 

No-Merit Letter satisfies all of the technical requirements of a Turner letter will we 

then conduct an independent review of the merits of the petition for review to

determine if it lacks merit. Zerby, 964 A.2d at 960. If Counsel’s No-Merit Letter 

does not satisfy the technical requirements of Turner, we will deny Counsel’s 

request and direct Counsel to either file a no-merit letter that complies with Turner

or submit a brief on the merits of Edwards’ Petition for Review. Id.

At the outset, we note that Counsel has complied with the notice 

requirements of a Turner letter. In his Application to Withdraw, Counsel states 

that he was including the No-Merit Letter with his Application to Withdraw, which 

was sent to this Court and to Edwards. In the No-Merit Letter, Counsel “advis[ed]

. . . Edwards of his right to retain substitute counsel, if he so desires, and of his 

right to raise any points which he may deem worthy of merit in a pro se brief filed 

with this Honorable Court.” (No-Merit Letter at 3-4.) Counsel also filed with this 

Court certificates of service indicating that he sent both the Application to 

Withdraw, which had the No-Merit Letter attached, and the No-Merit Letter to 

Edwards. Moreover, it is apparent from Counsel’s recitation of the facts at hand 

that he has satisfied his obligation to thoroughly review the certified record in this 

matter. Zerby, 964 A.2d at 960.

Turning to the substance of Counsel’s No-Merit Letter, in the Amended 

Petition for Review, Counsel set forth Edwards’ issue as whether the Board “failed 
6

to give [Edwards] credit for all time served exclusively [on] its warrant.”1 

(Amended Petition for Review ¶ 5.) This is the issue that Counsel addresses in his 

No-Merit Letter, focusing on Edwards’ contention that he should get credit for the 

period of time he was returned to DOC custody until the Board’s revocation 

decision.

2

 (No-Merit Letter at 3.) Citing Campbell and noting that Edwards did 

not post bail on the new charges and had not been recommitted as of April 10, 

2015, Counsel asserts that Edwards was not entitled to credit against his backtime 

until the date the Board issued the action recommitting him as a CPV. (Id.) 

Therefore, Counsel maintains that Edwards’ appeal “has no basis in law or in fact 

and is, therefore, frivolous.” (Id.) 

 

1

Edwards’ pro se Petition for Review raised the following issues: (1) he should have 

received “credit for time[]spent in good standing while on parole”; (2) he should have received 

credit “for time spent in custody under the Board’s detainer unable to post bail [sic]” from 

August 13, 2014 to March 31, 2015, and from when he was returned to DOC custody on April 

10, 2015 until the Board’s Decision mailed on August 24, 2015; (3) the Board erred in extending 

Edwards’ judicially-imposed sentence when it recalculated his maximum date beyond his 

original maximum date; and (4) the Board violated “the Collateral Estoppel Doctrine, Double 

Jeopardy, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law Clauses 

of the U.S. Constitution.” (Petition for Review ¶¶ 2, 10-11.) However, many of these issues 

have been addressed and rejected as being without merit or waived for not being raised before 

the Board in the first instance. See, e.g., Young v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 409 A.2d 843, 

847 n.8 (Pa. 1979); Rivenbark v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 501 A.2d 1110, 1112-13 (Pa. 

1985); Gaito, 412 A.2d at 570-71; Malarik v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 25 A.3d 468, 469 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2011); Richards v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 20 A.3d 596, 598-600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2011); White v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 833 A.2d 819, 821 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); Torres v. 

Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 765 A.2d 418, 423 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000); Boswell v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. 

and Parole, 512 A.2d 66, 68-70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986); U.S. v. Cavell, 425 F.2d 1350, 1352 (3d 

Cir. 1970). Thus, it is understandable why Counsel did not include them in the Amended 

Petition for Review filed on Edwards’ behalf.

2 Counsel misstates the dates at issue using August 10, 2015 and October 3, 2015, instead 

of April 10, 2015 and August 3, 2015, which was the period between Edwards’ return to DOC 

and the revocation hearing.
7

Counsel advised Edwards of his right to file a pro se brief or hire new 

counsel if he believed that there were other issues he deemed worthy of raising to 

this Court, (No-Merit Letter at 3-4), but Edwards has not done either. Absent a 

brief from Edwards advising this Court that there are other issues that he believes 

are meritorious that are not being raised by Counsel, we conclude that Counsel, in 

discussing the issue raised in the Amended Petition for Review, citing to 

Campbell, and explaining why Campbell is applicable, has identified the “issue the 

[client] wished to have raised” and explained why that issue is without merit. 

Turner, 544 A.2d at 928. 

Because Counsel’s No-Merit Letter satisfies the requirements of a Turner

letter, we now conduct an independent review to determine whether the issue 

Edwards raises lacks merit. Zerby, 964 A.2d at 960. In Campbell, this Court held 

that, although a CPV is required “to serve the balance of his original sentence 

before beginning service of a newly-imposed term, ‘this rule only becomes 

operative when parole has been revoked and the remainder of the original sentence 

becomes due and owing.’” Campbell, 409 A.2d at 981-92 (quoting Richmond v. 

Commonwealth, 402 A.2d 1134, 1135 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979)) (emphasis added). 

When Edwards returned to DOC on April 10, 2015, his parole had not yet been 

revoked by the Board and, as such, “‘the remainder of [his] original sentence’” was 

not yet “‘due and owing.’” Id. (quoting Richmond, 402 A.2d at 1135). This did 

not occur until August 3, 2015, which is what the Board used as Edwards’ return to 

DOC custody date to compute his new maximum date. We also note, as the Board 

did in its Order, that Edwards was not entitled to credit for any of his pre-sentence 

confinement because he did not post bail on his new charges and, therefore, was 

not confined solely on the Board’s warrant. Gaito, 412 A.2d at 571. Edwards had 
8

965 days remaining on his original sentence when he was paroled, and adding that 

number of days to August 3, 2015 results, as the Board concluded, in a new 

maximum date of March 25, 2018. (C.R. at 80.)

Accordingly, we grant Counsel’s Application to Withdraw and affirm the 

Board’s Order.

________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Daniel Edwards, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 420 C.D. 2016

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and :

Parole, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

NOW, January 27, 2017, the Application for Leave to Withdraw 

Appearance filed by Kent D. Watkins, Esquire is hereby GRANTED, and the 

Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is hereby AFFIRMED.

________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge