IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Anton McCullough, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, : No. 87 C.D. 2020

Respondent : Submitted: February 12, 2021

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: March 15, 2021

Anton McCullough (McCullough) petitions this Court for review of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s (Board)1January 7, 2020 order 

dismissing his request for administrative relief from the Board’s September 5, 2018

order (mailed September 17, 2018) as untimely filed. McCullough is represented in 

this matter by Luzerne County Assistant Public Defender Richard C. Shiptoski, 

Esquire (Counsel), who has filed a Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel 

(Petition) and an Anders brief2in support thereof. By May 19, 2020 Order, this 

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, 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101, 6111(a).

2 Anders v. State of Cal., 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (“a brief referring to anything in the 

record that might arguably support the appeal” to be filed with the Court “if counsel finds his 

[client’s] case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it”). Where counsel 

files an Anders brief when a no-merit letter would have sufficed, this Court will accept an Anders

brief in lieu of a no-merit letter if the Anders brief complies with the substantive requirements of 

a no-merit letter. See Seilhamer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 996 A.2d 40 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). 

A no-merit letter must detail the nature and extent of counsel’s review, list each of the parolee’s 
2

Court granted the Board’s motion to limit the issue on appeal to whether the Board 

properly dismissed McCullough’s appeal as untimely. See May 19, 2020 Order. 

After review, we grant Counsel’s Petition and affirm the Board’s order.

McCullough is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at 

Dallas. On December 10, 2016, McCullough was paroled from his 91⁄2- to 20-year

sentence for aggravated assault and drug violations (Original Sentence). See

Certified Record (C.R.) at 1, 23, 29. McCullough’s Original Sentence maximum 

release date was March 31, 2020. See id.

On March 10, 2017, the Williamsport police arrested McCullough and 

charged him with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession 

of an instrument of crime, and disorderly conduct (New Charges). See C.R. at 42. 

Thereafter, McCullough was convicted of the New Charges and, on June 5, 2018, 

he was sentenced to 6 to 12 months in county prison. See C.R. at 2.

By decision recorded on September 5, 2018 (mailed September 17, 

2018), the Board recommitted McCullough as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to 

serve 6 months of backtime (Recommitment Order). See C.R. at 1-4. The 

Recommitment Order informed McCullough that the Board did not award him credit 

for the time he spent at liberty on parole because of his “QUICK FAILURE ON 

SUPERVISION. ONGOING POOR SUPERVISION.” C.R. at 3. Accordingly, the Board 

recalculated McCullough’s Original Sentence maximum release date to July 7, 

2023.3 See C.R. at 4. The Recommitment Order further declared: 

issues, and explain why each issue is meritless. See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 

1988); see also Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). Counsel must supply the 

parolee with a copy of the no-merit letter, notify the parolee of counsel’s intention to withdraw, 

and inform the parolee of his right to retain new counsel or submit a brief on his own behalf. See 

Reavis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 909 A.2d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). 

3 The Recommitment Order reflects that McCullough’s Original Sentence maximum 

release date was March 31, 2020; he was paroled on December 10, 2016, at which time he owed 

1,477 days; he was returned to custody on June 7, 2018; and his new Original Sentence maximum 

release date is July 7, 2023. See C.R. at 1.
3

IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, YOU MUST FILE 

A REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF WITH THE 

BOARD WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE MAILING DATE 

OF THIS DECISION [i.e., BY OCTOBER 17, 2018]. THIS 

REQUEST SHALL SET FORTH SPECIFICALLY THE 

FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES FOR THE ALLEGATIONS. 

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY IN THIS APPEAL 

AND IN ANY SUBSEQUENT APPEAL TO THE 

COMMONWEALTH COURT.

C.R. at 4. An administrative remedies form and a public defender list were included 

with the Board’s decision. See C.R. at 4. 

On April 5, 2019, the Board received McCullough’s Request for 

Administrative Remedy (April 2019 Appeal).

4

 Therein, McCullough raised 

substantive and constitutional challenges to the Board’s Recommitment Order. 

Specifically, McCullough alleged that the Board lacked authority to change his 

judicially imposed sentence; the Board entered into an illegal contract; the Board 

should have credited his time spent at liberty on parole; and, because there was 

insufficient detail in the Board’s reasoning, his due process rights were violated. See

C.R. at 7-37. 

On November 15, 2019, following an interview with McCullough, the 

Board denied him reparole. See C.R. at 5-6. The Board received an administrative 

appeal from McCullough on December 12, 2019, wherein he challenged the Board’s 

November 15, 2019 decision denying him reparole on the basis that the Board’s 

sentence recalculation in the Recommitment Order continued to prejudice him. See 

C.R. at 38-44. In addition, on December 31, 2019, the Board received an addendum 

to McCullough’s December 12, 2019 appeal, again challenging the Board’s 

November 15, 2019 decision, and again arguing that the Board improperly 

recalculated his sentence pursuant to the Recommitment Order. See C.R. at 45-49.

4 Counsel references separate appeals filed on March 27 and March 29, 2019. See Anders

Br. at 13. However, it appears that both appeals were mailed together, postmarked April 3, 2019, 

and received by the Board on April 5, 2019. See C.R. at 7-37.
4

On January 7, 2020, the Board dismissed the April 2019 Appeal as 

untimely, and further denied McCullough’s parole denial challenge because no 

constitutional right to parole exists under federal or Pennsylvania law. See C.R. at 

50-51. On February 4, 2020, McCullough filed a petition for review with this Court. 

On March 2, 2020, Northumberland County Independent Defense Counsel James L. 

Best, Esquire (Best) entered his appearance on McCullough’s behalf. After 

McCullough was transferred from SCI-Coal Township in Northumberland County 

to SCI-Dallas in Luzerne County, Best withdrew his appearance. On April 1, 2020, 

the Board filed a Motion to Limit McCullough’s Issue on Appeal to Timeliness

(Motion)/Application for Stay. On April 8, 2020, this Court granted the Application 

for Stay. On May 19, 2020, this Court granted the Motion and limited the issue 

before this Court on appeal to whether the Board properly dismissed McCullough’s 

appeal as untimely. 

On September 11, 2020, this Court issued an order directing that a 

Luzerne County public defender be assigned to McCullough. On September 18, 

2020, Counsel conducted a telephone conference with McCullough and reviewed 

his filings. On October 2, 2020, Counsel entered his appearance on McCullough’s 

behalf. On November 5, 2020, Counsel filed the Petition and the Anders brief in 

support thereof. By November 5, 2020 letter (Letter), Counsel served McCullough 

with the Petition and the Anders brief. See Petition at 4. On December 3, 2020, this 

Court ordered Counsel’s Petition to be considered along with the merits of 

McCullough’s appeal, and offered McCullough an opportunity to obtain substitute 

counsel or file a brief on his own behalf within 30 days. McCullough did not file a 

brief with this Court.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has explained:

‘When presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not 

review the merits of the underlying issues without first 
5

passing on the request to withdraw.’ Commonwealth v. 

Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation 

omitted). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes an 

appeal is frivolous and wishes to withdraw from 

representation, he/she must do the following:

(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating 

that after making a conscientious examination of 

the record, counsel has determined the appeal 

would be frivolous; (2) file a brief referring to any 

issues that might arguably support the appeal, but 

which does not resemble a no-merit letter; and (3) 

furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant and 

advise him of his right to retain new counsel, 

proceed pro se, or raise any additional points he 

deems worthy of th[e] Court’s attention.

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 906 A.2d 1225, 1227 (Pa. 

Super. 2006) (citation omitted). In Commonwealth v. 

Santiago, . . . 978 A.2d 349 ([Pa.] 2009), our Supreme 

Court addressed the second requirement of Anders, [i.e.], 

the contents of an Anders brief, and required that the brief

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history 

and facts, with citations to the record;

(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel 

believes arguably supports the appeal;

(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is 

frivolous; and

(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the 

appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the 

relevant facts of record, controlling case law, 

and/or statutes on point that have led to the 

conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. Once counsel has satisfied the 

Anders requirements, it is then th[e] Court’s responsibility 

‘to conduct a simple review of the record to ascertain if 

there appear[s] on its face to be arguably meritorious 

issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or 

misstated.’ Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 

272 (Pa. Super. 2018).

Commonwealth v. Cox, 231 A.3d 1011, 1014-15 (Pa. Super. 2020).
6

Here, with the Letter, Counsel served the Petition and the Anders brief, 

therein notifying McCullough of Counsel’s intention to seek permission to 

withdraw, and advising McCullough of his rights to file additional claims and to 

proceed pro se or with alternate counsel. See Letter. In the Petition, Counsel sets

forth the procedural history, and indicates that he conscientiously examined the 

record and determined that an appeal would be frivolous and without merit. See

Petition at 1-3. In the Anders brief, Counsel summarized the procedural history and 

facts with citations to the record, articulated the timeliness issue, and cited 

controlling case law and statutes to support his conclusion that McCullough’s 

challenge was meritless. See Anders Br. Specifically, Counsel explained in the 

Anders brief that the Board’s Recommitment Order and the Board’s Regulations 

directed that, if McCullough wished to appeal, he had to do so within 30 days; the 

law also specifies that failure to timely appeal may leave the Court without 

jurisdiction to consider the merits and result in the appeal being dismissed; and 

McCullough did not proffer any basis under which the appeal should be considered 

nunc pro tunc.

5

 See Anders Br. at 14-17. Accordingly, Counsel complied with the 

procedural requirements for withdrawing from representation.6 

This Court will now conduct an independent review to determine the 

sole issue on appeal as set forth in its May 19, 2020 Order - whether the Board 

properly dismissed McCullough’s appeal as untimely. 

Section 73.1(b) of the Board’s Regulations provides, in relevant part:

5 The Board and/or this Court may consider a late-filed appeal nunc pro tunc if the delay 

in filing was caused by extraordinary circumstances involving fraud or a breakdown in the 

administrative process or non-negligent circumstances related to the appellant, his attorney, or a 

third party. See Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001); see also Cook v. Unemployment Comp. 

Bd. of Rev., 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996).

6 Because Counsel’s Anders brief satisfied the substantive requirements of a no-merit letter, 

this Court accepts it in lieu of a no-merit letter. See Seilhamer.
7

(1) A parolee, by counsel unless unrepresented, may 

petition for administrative review under this subsection of 

determinations relating to revocation decisions which are 

not otherwise appealable under subsection (a). Petitions 

for administrative review shall be received at the 

Board’s Central Office within 30 days of the mailing 

date of the Board’s determination. . . . 

. . . .

(3) Second or subsequent petitions for administrative 

review and petitions for administrative review which are 

out of time under this part will not be received. 

37 Pa. Code § 73.1(b) (bold and underline emphasis added). “Where a prisoner fails 

to meet this deadline, this [C]ourt has held that the Board has no jurisdiction to 

entertain the appeal and should dismiss it as untimely.” McCaskill v. Pa. Bd. of 

Prob. & Parole, 631 A.2d 1092, 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).

In the instant matter, the Board’s September 5, 2018 decision (mailed 

September 17, 2018) specified that McCullough had until October 17, 2018 (i.e., 30 

days from September 17, 2018) to appeal from the Board’s decision. It is undisputed 

that McCullough filed his April 2019 Appeal nearly six months after it was due. 

Because McCullough did not file his April 2019 Appeal within 30 days after the 

Board mailed the Recommitment Order, the filing was untimely. Accordingly, the 

Board properly dismissed McCullough’s appeal as untimely.

Pursuant to Section 73.1(b)(3) of the Board’s Regulations, the Board 

was not required to rule on McCullough’s December 12 and 31, 2019 appeals 

because he simply reiterated therein that the Board erred in its recalculation of 

McCullough’s maximum sentence date. See 37 Pa. Code § 73.1(b)(3). 

Notwithstanding, to the extent McCullough’s December 12 and 31, 2019 appeals

were simply addenda to the appeals he filed from the Board’s Recommitment Order, 

they were still untimely. Out of an abundance of clarity, the Board further declared:
8

The [Board action recorded November 15, 2019,] is a 

parole denial. The Board [R]egulation authorizing

administrative relief does not apply to decisions denying 

parole or requests to be reviewed for parole again. Instead, 

the [R]egulation provides an administrative remedy to 

challenge parole revocations and any corresponding 

recalculations based on those parole revocations. 37 Pa.

Code § 73.1. There is no constitutional right to parole 

under federal or Pennsylvania law. Jago v. Van Curen,

454 U.S. 14 (1981); Rogers v. P[a.] B[d.] of Prob[.] [&]

Parole, 724 A.2d 319 (Pa. 1999). Nor is there any right to 

review a parole denial because that decision falls within 

the Board’s discretion. As such, the Board cannot accept 

your attempt to challenge the parole denial.

Board Dec. at 1, C.R. at 50. Accordingly, McCullough’s December 12 and 31, 2019 

appeals were untimely and were not permitted under the law.

Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes that Counsel complied 

with Anders’ technical requirements and confirms, based upon an independent 

record review, that McCullough’s appeal was properly dismissed as untimely. For 

all of the above reasons, Counsel’s Petition is granted, and the Board’s order is 

affirmed.

_________________________________

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

Anton McCullough, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, : No. 87 C.D. 2020

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2021, Luzerne County Assistant

Public Defender Richard C. Shiptoski, Esquire’s Petition for Leave to Withdraw as 

Counsel is GRANTED, and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s 

January 7, 2020 order is AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge