Robb William Pataski v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied without prejudice counsel’s application to withdraw from representing Robb William Pataski in his challenge to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s revocation decision. The court held that counsel’s Turner letter was inadequate because it failed to substantively address two issues raised in the petition for review concerning time credits and street-time credit. Counsel was directed to file an amended application and no-merit letter or an advocate’s brief within 30 days.

Holdings

1. A no-merit letter must explain the nature and extent of counsel's review, identify each issue the petitioner wishes to raise, and explain why each issue lacks merit. Counsel's letter was inadequate because it failed to substantively address the two time-credit issues raised in the petition for review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether counsel's Turner no-merit letter adequately addressed each issue Pataski sought to raise in the petition for review.
2. Whether counsel should be permitted to withdraw from representation when the Turner letter failed to substantively analyze two issues identified in the petition for review.

Disposition

other