The opinion
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Bernard Brown, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 954 C.D. 2023
:
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent : Submitted: August 8, 2025
BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE WOLF FILED: June 18, 2026
Bernard Brown (Brown) petitions this Court to review a decision of the
Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) mailed August 16, 2023, affirming its prior
decision recorded March 13, 2023, thereby denying Brown’s request for
administrative relief from that decision. Brown’s counsel, Kent D. Watkins, Esquire
(Counsel), has filed a second Application to Withdraw as counsel and an Amended
No-Merit Letter1 stating that Brown’s petition for review is meritless. For the
reasons that follow, we deny Counsel’s Application to Withdraw.
1
In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), the United States Supreme Court held that
before a criminal defendant’s counsel may withdraw from representing his client in an appeal,
counsel must assert that the case is completely frivolous, as compared to presenting an absence of
merit. 386 U.S. at 744. An appeal is completely or “wholly” frivolous when there are no factual
or legal justifications that support the appeal. Craig v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 502 A.2d 758,
761 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). In seeking to withdraw, counsel must submit a petition to withdraw and
(Footnote continued on next page…)
I. BACKGROUND
Brown is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution
(SCI) at Mahanoy serving a parole recommitment. Petition for Review, ¶ 2. Brown
was originally sentenced on April 28, 2014 in Philadelphia County for a period of 5
to 10 years’ incarceration on a charge of aggravated assault. Certified Record (C.R.)
at 1. His original minimum and maximum dates were September 10, 2017, and
September 10, 2022, respectively. Id. at 2. On May 26, 2017, the Board ordered
that Brown be released on his minimum date. Id. at 4. A warrant to commit and
detain Brown was issued on August 13, 2019, following a new arrest for federal
charges. Id. at 13. While awaiting disposition of his federal charges, Brown was
held in federal custody without bail. Id. at 74-77. On March 19, 2020, Brown
pleaded guilty to the federal charges, 2 counts for the distribution of cocaine base
(also known as “crack” cocaine), and was sentenced to a period of 60 months’ federal
incarceration followed by 60 months’ supervision. Id. at 14-17.
On September 15, 2021, the Board served Brown with a notice of its
intent to hold a parole revocation hearing on the basis of his new conviction. C.R.
at 14. On the same day, Brown signed a form waiving his right to a parole revocation
hearing and admitting that he violated his parole as a result of his new conviction.
Id. at 19. The Board issued a decision on November 9, 2021, recommitting Brown
as a convicted parole violator, when available following his federal detention, for a
period of 18 months and denying Brown credit for time spent at liberty on parole.
a brief “referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Com. v. Baker,
239 A.2d 201, 202 (Pa. 1968) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, however, has held that in matters that are collateral to an underlying criminal proceeding,
such as parole matters, counsel seeking to withdraw from his representation of a client may file a
“no-merit” letter that includes information describing the extent and nature of counsel’s review,
listing the issues the client wants to raise, and informing the Court why counsel believes the issues
have no merit. Com. v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927, 928-29 (Pa. 1988).
2
Id. at 63-70, 78-79. The Board subsequently lodged a new warrant to detain Brown
on November 22, 2021. Id. at 80. Brown completed his federal sentence and was
returned to state incarceration on February 17, 2023. Id. at 81. On March 13, 2023,
the Board issued a decision and order finalizing Brown’s recommitment and
referring back to its November 9, 2021 decision and order. Id. at 83.
On April 11, 2023, Brown filed a pro se administrative appeal
challenging the Board’s March 13, 2023 decision and order. Brown’s administrative
appeal essentially raises four issues. He contends that the Board failed to provide
him a timely revocation hearing, that the Board violated his Fourteenth Amendment2
rights, that the Board violated 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5.1) when it failed to cause him
to serve his recommitment sentence prior to his federal sentence for new charges,
and finally that the Board failed to properly calculate his recommitment term. C.R.
at 85. On April 28, 2023, Counsel mailed, and on May 3, 2023, the Board received,
Counsel’s entry of appearance in Brown’s administrative appeal. Id. at 92. On
August 16, 2023, the Board issued a decision responsive to Brown’s administrative
appeal affirming its March 13, 2023 order. Id. at 95.
Brown subsequently petitioned this Court for review through Counsel.
In his Petition for Review, Brown contends that the Board failed to properly
calculate his recommitment sentence and that the Board violated 61 Pa.C.S. §
6138(a)(5.1) by failing to require him to serve his recommitment sentence prior to
his federal sentence on new charges. See Petition for Review, ¶¶ 5-6.
II. APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW
On November 1, 2023 Counsel filed an Application to Withdraw and
accompanying No-Merit Letter. That Application was denied without prejudice by
2
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
3
this Court on October 10, 2024, concluding that Counsel’s No-Merit letter failed to
address and adequately analyze multiple issues Brown sought to raise. Specifically,
this Court noted that Counsel did not address “either of the issues raised by Brown
in his Petition for Review, namely, that the Board did not award Brown credit for all
of the time he served on its warrant and improperly required Brown to serve his
federal sentence before the balance of his state sentence,” and further failed to
address “Brown’s argument that the Board unlawfully denied him the ability to have
a parole revocation hearing.” Brown v. Pa. Parole Bd. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 954 C.D.
2023, filed Oct. 10, 2024), slip op. at 5. Additionally, this Court found that
Counsel’s No-Merit Letter failed to adequately analyze Brown’s claim that the
Board violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 6. This Court permitted
Counsel to file a second Application to Withdraw and Amended No-Merit Letter,
which Counsel filed on November 12, 2024, and are now before us.
When no constitutional right to counsel3 is involved in a parole case, an
attorney seeking to withdraw may file a no-merit4 letter instead of an Anders brief.
Com. v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927, 928-29 (Pa. 1988). To satisfy the procedural
requirements of no-merit letters, counsel must: (1) notify the parolee that he has
submitted to the Court a request to withdraw; (2) provide the parolee with a copy of
3
A parolee has a constitutional right to counsel only if the parolee claims either (1) he did not
commit the alleged violation of parole or (2) he committed the violation but there are substantial
mitigating factors that are “complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.” Hughes v. Pa.
Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 977 A.2d 19, 25-26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gagnon v.
Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973)). Brown admitted that he committed the crimes for which he
received a new criminal conviction when pleading to such offenses, and the record suggests no
reason to justify or mitigate the parole violation. Thus, Brown has only a statutory right to counsel
under Section 6(a)(10) of the Public Defender Act. Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1144, as
amended, 16 P.S. § 9960.6.
4
Commonly referred to as a Turner or Turner/Finley letter. Com. v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213
(Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
4
counsel’s no-merit letter; and (3) advise the parolee that he has the right to obtain
new counsel and to submit to the Court a brief of his own, raising any arguments
that he may believe are meritorious. Reavis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 909 A.2d
28, 33 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). This Court requires an attorney’s no-merit letter to
include the following information: (1) the nature and extent of counsel’s review of
the case; (2) the issues the parolee wants to raise; and (3) the analysis counsel used
in concluding that the issues are meritless. Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 961 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2009). If the no-merit letter satisfies these basic requirements, this Court
may then review the soundness of a petitioner’s request for relief. Id. at 960.
However, if the letter fails to comply with the technical requirements, this Court
must deny the request for leave to withdraw without analyzing the substance of the
underlying petition for review and may direct counsel to file either an amended
request for leave to withdraw or a brief on behalf of their client. Id.
In spite of this Court’s prior opinion and order denying Counsel’s first
Application to Withdraw, certain deficiencies previously noted remain unaddressed
in the Amended No-Merit Letter. Specifically, Counsel’s Amended No-Merit Letter
fails to address the claim raised in the Petition that the Board failed to award Brown
credit for all time served exclusively to its warrant. See Petition ¶ 5. While Counsel
addresses the calculation of Brown’s sentence generally, he fails to address this
specific claim or provide analysis as to what time, if any, was served exclusively
pursuant to a warrant by the Board and the extent to which such time was reflected
in the Board’s calculations. Counsel’s letter further makes only passing references
to Brown’s waiver of a parole revocation hearing but fails to provide citations or
analysis as to Brown’s argument that he was deprived of a timely revocation hearing.
5
Accordingly, we again conclude that Counsel has failed to satisfy the technical
requirements.
III. CONCLUSION
Because Counsel’s Amended No-Merit Letter has failed to fully satisfy
the technical requirements of Turner, we again deny Counsel’s Application to
Withdraw without prejudice. Counsel is directed to remedy the deficiencies
identified herein by filing a second amended Application to Withdraw and
accompanying No-Merit Letter, or an advocate’s brief in support of Brown’s Petition
for Review, within 30 days.5
_____________________________________
MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge
5
Due to our disposition, we do not address the merits of Brown’s Petition.
6
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Bernard Brown, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 954 C.D. 2023
:
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of June 2026, the Application to Withdraw as
Counsel (Application to Withdraw) filed by Kent D. Watkins, Esquire (Counsel), is
hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Counsel shall file an amended
Application to Withdraw and a No-Merit Letter pursuant to Commonwealth v.
Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), or an advocate’s brief in support of Petitioner
Bernard Brown’s Petition for Review, within 30 days.
Jurisdiction retained.
_____________________________________
MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge