IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Peter Norcross, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1790 C.D. 2019

: Submitted: July 24, 2020

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: March 18, 2021

Peter Norcross (Norcross) petitions for review from an order of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board)1that denied his request for 

administrative review challenging the calculation of his parole violation maximum 

date. Also before us is a petition to withdraw as counsel filed by Norcross’s courtappointed attorney, David Crowley, Esquire (Attorney Crowley), on the ground that 

1 Subsequent to the filing of the petition for review, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation 

and Parole was renamed the Pennsylvania Parole Board. See Sections 15, 16, and 16.1 of the Act 

of December 18, 2019, P.L. 776, No. 115 (effective February 18, 2020); see also Sections 6101 

and 6111(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code), as amended, 61 Pa. C.S. §§6101, 

6111(a).
2

Norcross’s appeal is without merit. For the reasons that follow, we grant Attorney 

Crowley’s petition to withdraw as counsel, and we affirm the Board’s order. 

I. Background

On December 12, 2014, Norcross was sentenced to a term of 2 years 

and 22 days to 5 years and 6 months in state prison based on his guilty plea to three 

drug-related offenses. Certified Record (C.R.) at 1-2. Norcross’s original maximum 

sentence date was April 18, 2020. Id. 

On November 14, 2016, the Board paroled Norcross to a community 

corrections residency. C.R. at 4-6. At the time Norcross was paroled, there were 

1,251 days remaining on his sentence. On July 3, 2017, while on parole, Norcross 

was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance. Id. at 13-15. 

That same day, the Board issued a warrant to commit and detain Norcross for parole 

violations. Id. at 17. The Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) set 

monetary bail, which Norcross did not post. Id. at 19. On July 12, 2017, Norcross

pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance but was not sentenced to a 

period of confinement. Id. at 25. On July 21, 2017, Norcross waived his right to a 

violation hearing and was detained at the York County Parole Violator Center (PV 

Center) pending completion of recommended programming. Id. at 30. On 

September 14, 2017, Norcross was released from the PV Center.

On June 27, 2018, Norcross was arrested on drug charges. Id. at 42. 

That same day, the Board issued a warrant to commit and detain Norcross for parole 

violations. Id. at 42. The trial court set monetary bail, which Norcross did not post. 

Id. at 47. On August 1, 2018, the Board rendered a decision to detain Norcross 

pending disposition of the new criminal charges. Id. at 52. On October 29, 2018, 

Norcross pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. Id. at 94. Norcross 
3

was sentenced to a period of incarceration of not less than 13 months nor more than 

20 months with credit for 245 days served. Id. at 94. 

The Board charged Norcross as a convicted parole violator (CPV) 

based on his new conviction. C.R. at 61. Norcross signed a waiver of revocation 

hearing and a counsel/admission form and a waiver of panel hearing relative to the 

conviction. Id. at 63-64. A hearing examiner determined that Norcross should be 

recommitted as a CPV to serve 18 months of backtime with no credit for the time 

that he spent at liberty on parole, citing the similarity between the new conviction 

and his original conviction. Id. at 69-72. On December 4, 2018, the Board revoked 

Norcross’s parole when the second signature was placed on the hearing report. Id. 

at 73.

By decision mailed December 7, 2018, the Board recommitted 

Norcross as a CPV to serve 18 months’ backtime. C.R. at 85. On April 22, 2019, 

Norcross received a second Board decision, referencing the December 7, 2018 

decision, denying Norcross credit for street time. Id. at 104. The Board credited 

Norcross with the 71 days that he was detained solely on the Board’s warrant in the 

PV Center. The Board added the remaining 1,180 days from Norcross’s original 

sentence to his custody for return date, February 25, 2019, making Norcross’s new 

maximum sentence date May 20, 2022. Id. at 102. The Board declared that he would 

not be eligible for parole until August 25, 2020. Id. at 104.

On April 29, 2019, Norcross, representing himself, submitted an appeal 

and a request for administrative review of the Board’s decision, challenging the 

Board’s authority to alter the sentencing judge’s April 18, 2020 maximum sentence 

date. C.R. at 108-110. Norcross also argued that because his new conviction was 

for a nonviolent offense, he could not be forced to forfeit his street time. Id. at 108. 
4

On the same day, Norcross filed a counseled administrative review request seeking 

proof that the Board’s decision to deny credit for street time was made 

contemporaneously with its decision to recommit him as a CPV. Id. at 106. On 

October 24, 2019, Norcross sent a letter to the Board inquiring about the status of 

his appeal and requests for administrative review, raising a new issue regarding the 

Board’s denial of credit for the days that he was paroled to a community corrections 

residency and complaining generally that the Board miscalculated his maximum 

sentence date. Id. at 112. By decision mailed December 9, 2019, the Board denied 

Norcross’s appeal and request for administrative review upon determining that the 

Board did not miscalculate his maximum sentence date and properly denied credit 

for street time, and affirmed its recommitment decision. Id. at 116. 

From this decision, Attorney Crowley filed a petition for review on 

Norcross’s behalf. Shortly thereafter, Attorney Crowley filed a petition to withdraw 

as counsel along with a no-merit letter based on his belief that Norcross’s appeal is 

without merit. This matter is now before us for disposition. 

II. Petition to Withdraw

Counsel seeking to withdraw as appointed counsel must conduct a 

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

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

petitioner wishes 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. 
5

2009). 2 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) provide

the petitioner with a copy of the 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, the 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 that the petitioner’s claims lack 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 Crowley’s no-merit letter satisfies the technical 

requirements of Turner. Attorney Crowley states that he has conducted a review of 

the record, applicable statutes, and case law. He sets forth the issues that Norcross 

wishes to have reviewed, specifically that the Board: (1) lacks the authority to alter 

Norcross’s judicially imposed maximum sentence date; (2) erred by denying credit 

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

withdraw must submit a brief in accordance 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. 
6

for street time because he is a nonviolent offender; (3) did not render the 

recommitment decision and decision to deny credit for street time 

contemporaneously; (4) erred in denying credit for the time he was at a community 

corrections residency; and (5) incorrectly recalculated his maximum sentence date. 

Attorney Crowley provides a thorough analysis as to why these issues lack merit, 

citing the applicable statutes, regulations, case law and certified record in support of 

his conclusions.

First, Attorney Crowley explains that the Board’s recalculation of 

Norcross’s maximum sentence date is not an alteration of a judicially imposed 

sentence. Attorney Crowley cites well-settled case law explaining that the Board’s 

recalculation of Norcross’s maximum sentence date after his recommitment as a 

CPV is proper. Second, the Board has the discretion to credit a nonviolent CPV with 

street time, but it is not required to do so. Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466, 473 (Pa. 2017). Third, the Board provided a 

contemporaneous reason for its decision to not award Norcross credit for street time, 

in compliance with Pittman. Id. Fourth, Attorney Crowley explained that Norcross 

waived challenging the Board’s decision to not award him credit for the time spent 

in a community corrections residency by failing to raise the issue in his April 29, 

2019 appeal and administrative review request. Finally, Attorney Crowley explains 

that the Board did not miscalculate Norcross’s new maximum sentence date. 

Attorney Crowley explained that a parolee who is convicted of a crime while on 

parole may be recommitted to serve the unserved portion of his original maximum 

sentence and may be denied credit for street time. 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2). 

Based on his review, Attorney Crowley concludes that Norcross’s 

appeal to this Court lacks merit, and he requests permission to withdraw. Attorney 
7

Crowley provided Norcross with a copy of the no-merit letter and his request to 

withdraw. He advised Norcross of his right to retain new counsel or proceed pro 

se.

3

 As we are satisfied that Attorney Crowley has discharged his responsibility in 

complying with the technical requirements to withdraw from representation, we 

shall conduct an independent review to determine whether Norcross’s petition for 

review lacks merit.4

III. Independent Review

Norcross first asserts that the Board lacks the authority to alter his 

“judicially imposed sentence” by recalculating his original maximum sentence date. 

We disagree. It is well settled that the Board, when recalculating the sentence of a 

CPV, is not encroaching upon the judicial powers. Rather, the Board is requiring 

the parole violator to serve his entire sentence under the authority granted to it by 

the General Assembly. Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 409 

A.2d 843, 848 (Pa. 1979). In executing this duty, the Board cannot impose backtime 

in excess of the remaining balance of the parolee’s unexpired term because fixing 

the sentence is a judicial function. 

Here, the Board initially paroled Norcross on November 14, 2016, 

1,251 days short of his April 18, 2020 maximum sentence date. C.R. at 102. By 

decision mailed December 7, 2018, the Board recommitted Norcross as a CPV to 

serve his unexpired term of 1,180 days, giving Norcross credit for the 71 days that 

3 Norcross did not retain new counsel or file a pro se brief in support of his petition for 

review. 

4 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, 

whether the Board’s 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).
8

he was detained solely on the Board’s warrant. Id. The Board did not err by 

recommitting Norcross to serve the time remaining on his original judicially 

imposed sentence.

Norcross next asserts that the Board erred by refusing to award him 

credit for the time he spent at liberty on parole. Section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Parole 

Code grants the Board discretion to award credit to a CPV recommitted for the 

reasons stated in subsections 6138(a)(2.1)(i) and (ii). 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2.1); 

Pittman, 159 A.3d at 473. When exercising this discretion, the Board must conduct 

an “individual assessment of the facts and circumstances surrounding [a parolee’s] 

parole revocation.” Pittman, 159 A.3d at 474. Further, the Board must “articulate 

the basis for its decision to grant or deny a CPV credit for time served at liberty on 

parole.” Id. Although the Board has broad discretion to grant or deny such credit, 

its decision is subject to appellate review and must be reversed or vacated as an abuse 

of discretion where the Board has based its denial of credit on an erroneous premise. 

Id. at 474-75 and n.12. Where the Board denies credit for time served at liberty on 

parole, that time is applied to the original maximum expiration date to create a new 

maximum date. Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 

A.2d 348, 351 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

In Norcross’s case, he was not convicted of a crime of violence as 

defined in Section 9714(g) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §9714(g). See 61 

Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2.1)(i) and (ii). Therefore, the Board had discretion to grant or 

deny Norcross credit for the time that he was at liberty on parole. 61 Pa. C.S. 

§6138(a)(2.1); Pittman. Here, the Board stated that it declined to credit Norcross 

with the time that he spent at liberty on parole, citing the similarity of the new offense 
9

and Norcross’s original offense. C.R. at 69, 104. Upon review, we find no error in 

the Board’s decision to deny credit for street time. 

Norcross, in his counseled administrative review request, questions if 

the Board’s decision to deny credit for street time was made contemporaneously 

with its decision to recommit him as a CPV. The Board’s decision to recommit 

Norcross as a CPV was mailed on December 7, 2018. C.R. at 85-86. Norcross states 

that he was not notified of the Board’s decision to deny credit for street time until 

April 22, 2019. Id. at 104. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that, pursuant 

to Section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Code, “the Board must provide a contemporaneous 

statement explaining its reason for denying a CPV credit for time spent at liberty on 

parole.” Pittman, 159 A.3d at 475. The revocation hearing report establishes that 

the decision to deny Norcross credit for street time was made contemporaneously 

with the decision to recommit him as a CPV, in compliance with Pittman. C.R. at 

67-73.

Further, Norcross argues that the Board failed to award credit for the 

time that he spent in the community corrections residency between April 14, 2016,

and April 4, 2017. However, Norcross failed to raise this issue in his April 29, 2019 

administrative appeal and administrative review request to the Board. C.R. at 108. 

Administrative appeals and petitions for administrative review must be received by 

the Board’s central office within 30 days of the Board’s decision. 37 Pa. Code 

§73.1(a)(1), (b)(1). Second or subsequent administrative appeals and appeals which 

are out of time will not be received. 37 Pa. Code §73.1(a)(4). The same rule applies 

to petitions for administrative review. 37 Pa. Code §73.1(b)(3). Moreover, it is well 

settled that issues not raised before the Board at the revocation hearing or in an 

administrative appeal or request for administrative review are waived. Chesson v. 
10

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 47 A.3d 875, 878 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012);

McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 631 A.2d 1092, 1094-

95 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).

Here, the Board decision Norcross challenges was rendered on April 

22, 2019. The final day for Norcross to file his appeal or administrative review 

request was May 22, 2019. Norcross first raised this issue in his October 21, 2019 

letter to the Board inquiring about the status of his appeal and administrative review 

request, 152 days after the appeal period closed. Id. at 112; 37 Pa. Code §73.1(a)(1), 

(4) and (b)(1), (3). Therefore, Norcross has waived the issue. 

Finally, Norcross complains generally that the Board erred in its 

recalculation of his maximum sentence date, and failed to account for all the time he 

was incarcerated. As discussed above, the Board was within its discretion to deny 

credit for Norcross’s street time, and properly recalculated his maximum sentence 

date. 

IV. Conclusion

Upon review, we agree with Attorney Crowley that Norcross’s claims 

are without merit. Accordingly, we grant Attorney Crowley’s petition to withdraw 

as counsel, and we affirm the order of the Board denying Norcross’s request for 

administrative review.

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

Peter Norcross, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1790 C.D. 2019

: 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2021, the petition to withdraw as 

counsel filed by David Crowley, Esquire, is GRANTED, and the order of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, dated December 9, 2019, is 

AFFIRMED. 

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge