IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Xavier Little, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 1140 C.D. 2017

Respondent : Submitted: March 2, 2018

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: June 18, 2018

Xavier Little (Little) petitions this Court for review of the Pennsylvania 

Board of Probation and Parole’s (Board) July 18, 2017 order denying his request for 

administrative relief. Little is represented in this matter by Kent D. Watkins, Esquire 

(Counsel), who has filed an Application to Withdraw as Counsel (Application). After 

review, we deny Counsel’s Application. 

Little is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (SCIMahanoy). On January 5, 2011, Little was sentenced to 2 years and 7 months to 10

years of imprisonment for criminal conspiracy and robbery of a motor vehicle. At 

that time, his maximum sentence release date was October 11, 2019. Thereafter, he 

was paroled, recommitted and reparoled.1 

 

1 During that time, Little’s supervision was transferred to Georgia, and he was charged with 

additional offenses.
2

By January 4, 2016 decision (mailed January 7, 2016), the Board 

recommitted Little as a technical parole violator (TPV) to serve 9 months for multiple 

technical parole violations. Notwithstanding, the Board declared, in pertinent part:

YOU ARE REPAROLED AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT FURTHER 

ACTION OF THE BOARD ON 07/12/2016 (2ND. . . TPV

RECOMMITMENT) PROVIDED YOU DO NOT 1) COMMIT A 

DISCIPLINARY INFRACTION INVOLVING ASSAULTIVE 

BEHAVIOR, SEXUAL ASSAULT, A WEAPON OR CONTROLLED 

SUBSTANCE; 2) SPEND MORE THAN 90 DAYS IN SEGREGATED 

HOUSING DUE TO ONE OR MORE DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS;

3) REFUSE PROGRAMMING OR A WORK ASSIGNMENT.

PAROLE RELEASE SUBJECT TO DETAINERS.

Certified Record (C.R.) at 109. However, by April 22, 2016 decision (mailed April 

26, 2016), the Board deleted (i.e., revoked) the automatic reparole portion of its 

January 4, 2016 decision, “due to [Little’s] recent misconduct.” C.R. at 115. 

On April 28, 2016, Little submitted an Administrative Remedies Form 

challenging the Board’s decision, stating:

I have received 60 days for disobeying an order and 30 days 

for another disobeying an order and 30 days for presence in 

an unauthorized area[,] and they are concurrent for 

misconduct #B867785[.] So total I have exactly 90 days 

DC time and I did not commit any of the listed infractions 

on my green sheet and I don’t have more than 90 days in 

segregated housing. Nor did I refuse any programming or 

work assignment.

C.R. at 117. 

On July 18, 2017, the Board denied Little’s request for administrative 

relief, stating in pertinent part:

While in a state correctional institution, [Little] incurred 

misconducts. The institution provided [Little] with

misconduct hearings, which resulted in multiple 

misconducts and a total of 110 days in segregated housing.
3

[Section 6138(d)(5) of t]he Prisons and Parole Code 

[(Parole Code), 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(d)(5),] provides that 

automatic reparole does not apply to [TPVs] who commit 

disciplinary infractions resultant in more than 90 days in 

segregated housing. . . . Because [Little] incurred 

qualifying misconducts under the statute, the Board acted 

within its authority by rescinding automatic reparole and 

listing [Little] for reparole review. Moreover, the Board 

acted within its discretion by taking this action without 

conducting an additional evidentiary hearing because 

[Little] was already afforded due process to challenge the 

misconduct at issue in the hearing held at the state 

correctional institution. There is no reason for the Board to 

re-litigate those facts.

C.R. at 123. Little appealed to this Court.2 Counsel subsequently filed his 

Application and a Turner letter.3 

This Court has held that in order to withdraw, “counsel . . . must provide 

a ‘no-merit’ letter which details ‘the nature and extent of [counsel’s] review and 

list[s] each issue the petitioner wished to have raised, with counsel’s explanation of 

why those issues are meritless.’” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 961 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927, 928 (Pa. 1988)). “[C]ounsel 

must fully comply with the procedures outlined in Turner to ensure that each of the 

 

2

“Our scope of review of the Board’s decision denying administrative relief is limited to 

determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, an error of 

law was committed, or constitutional rights have been violated.” Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & 

Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

3

[P]er [Commonwealth v.] Turner, [544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988),] Epps [v. 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 565 A.2d 214 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1989)], and Frankhouser [v. Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole, 598 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)], counsel

seeking to withdraw from representation of a petitioner seeking 

review of a determination of the Board must provide a ‘no-merit’

letter which details ‘the nature and extent of [the attorney’s] review 

and list[s] each issue the petitioner wished to have raised, with 

counsel’s explanation of why those issues are meritless.’ Turner, . . . 

544 A.2d at 928.

Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 961 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
4

petitioner’s claims has been considered and that counsel has [] substantive reason[s] 

for concluding that those claims are meritless.” Hont v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 

680 A.2d 47, 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Counsel is also required to “notify the parolee 

of his request to withdraw, furnish the parolee with . . . a no-merit letter satisfying the 

requirements of Turner, and inform the parolee of his right to retain new counsel or 

submit a brief on his own behalf.” Reavis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 909 A.2d 28, 

33 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). This Court must then “conduct its own independent review 

of the petition to withdraw and must concur in counsel’s assessment before [it] may 

grant counsel leave to withdraw.” Hont, 680 A.2d at 48.

In his Turner letter to this Court, Counsel explained:

The [Board] denied [Little] automatic reparole on the basis 

[of] multiple institutional misconducts resulting in a total of 

110 days in segregated housing in violation of [Section 

6138(d)(5) of the Parole Code,] which states, in essence, 

that [Little] shall be automatically reparoled without further 

action by the [B]oard unless he has spent more th[a]n 90

days in segregated housing due to one or more disciplinary 

infractions. 61 Pa. C.S.[] § 6138(d).

Although [Little] was not automatically paroled pursuant to 

[Section 6138 of the Parole Code,] [Counsel] has learned 

[that Little] has [sic] subsequently reparoled to a detainer

from the stat[e] of Georgia and has waived extradition and 

is proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill 

County on December 6, 2017, rend[er]ing the issue of 

automatic reparole moot.

The certified record provides no evidence the [Board’s]

actions constitute an error of law, violate [Little’s] 

constitutional rights or are not supported by substantial 

evidence. The record does not reveal any other issues that 

may be raised on [Little’s] behalf.

In light of my exhaustive examination of the certified 

record, and research of applicable case law, I have 

concluded that [Little’s] appeal from the revocation of his 

parole has no basis in law or in fact and is, therefore, 

frivolous. In view of my conclusion that [Little’s] appeal 
5

has no merit, I am filing a petition with the Honorable Court 

for leave to withdraw my appearance as [Little’s] appellate 

counsel. By copy of this letter, I am advising [Little] 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. 

Counsel Turner Letter at 5-6. 

Counsel’s Turner letter contains a scant procedural history of Little’s

case and explains Little’s challenges to the Board’s revocation of his automatic 

reparole, i.e., Little did not commit disciplinary infractions warranting such action. 

The Turner letter also includes Counsel’s review of the record and relevant statutory 

law. Counsel served Little with a copy of the no-merit letter and his Application, and 

notified Little that he may either obtain substitute counsel or file a brief on his own 

behalf.4 However, Counsel does not provide sufficient explanation for why Little’s 

issue on appeal is without merit. 

Despite that Little’s appeal is based purely upon his claim that he only 

spent 90 days in segregated housing, Counsel merely repeated the Board’s conclusion 

that Little spent 110 days in segregated housing and, thus, the Board was authorized 

to revoke his automatic reparole. Counsel offered no explanation and did not 

reference any source or documentation to support the 110-day calculation. Further, 

Counsel’s recitation of the procedural history of Little’s Pennsylvania and Georgia 

criminal cases does not adequately describe how the Georgia detainer makes Little’s

automatic reparole moot. 

Consequently, Counsel did not address Little’s issue with sufficient 

detail to provide a substantive reason for concluding that his claim was meritless. 

Hont. Without that information, this Court cannot “concur in [C]ounsel’s 

assessment.” Id. at 48. As a result, Counsel’s letter failed to fully comply with the 

Turner requirements. See id.

 

4 Little did not obtain substitute counsel or file a brief.
6

Accordingly, Counsel’s Application is denied without prejudice. 

Counsel has 30 days to either file an amended application and Turner letter that 

adequately addresses the issue raised in Little’s request for administrative relief and 

Counsel’s mootness determination, or to submit a brief on the merits. 

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Xavier Little, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 1140 C.D. 2017

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 18th day of June, 2018, the Application to Withdraw as 

Counsel filed by Kent D. Watkins, Esquire (Counsel) is DENIED. Counsel shall 

either file a renewed application to withdraw and an amended no-merit letter, or

submit a brief on the merits within 30 days from the date of this Order.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge