Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Dumas](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10804781/j-ellman-v-ppb/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

J. Ellman v. PPB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 630 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Dumas

• Opinion

• Authorities (12)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (14.6K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Dumas

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jalil Ellman, :
Petitioner :
: No. 630 C.D. 2024
v. :
: Submitted: September 9, 2025
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE DUMAS FILED: March 6, 2026

Jalil Ellman (Petitioner) has petitioned this Court to review a decision
of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board), mailed April 30, 2024, denying his
request for administrative relief. Additionally, Robert M. Varano, Esq. (Counsel),
Petitioner’s court-appointed counsel, has filed a letter pursuant to Commonwealth v.
Turner1 and an application to withdraw asserting that this appeal lacks merit. After
careful review, we grant Counsel’s application to withdraw and affirm the Board.

1
See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d
213 (Pa. Super. 1988).
I. BACKGROUND2
On February 23, 2022, Petitioner was released on parole with a
maximum date of July 30, 2024, and 888 days remaining on his original sentence.3
However, Petitioner was declared delinquent as of September 28, 2022. See Bd.
Action, 9/29/22.
On January 24, 2023, the Department of Corrections lodged a detainer
against Petitioner, and a day later he was arrested on new drug charges of
Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession with Intent to Manufacture or Deliver.4
Petitioner did not post bail, and on October 19, 2023, he was sentenced to 28 months
to 7 years of incarceration.
Meanwhile, on August 7, 2023, the Board recommitted Petitioner as a
convicted parole violator to serve 24 months, and as a technical parole violator to
serve 6 months, concurrently.5 See Bd. Action, mailed 8/7/23. Then, on November
29, 2023, after Petitioner was sentenced, the Board denied Petitioner credit for time
spent at liberty on parole. See Bd. Action, mailed 11/29/23. Petitioner was given
credit for one day from January 24, 2023, to January 25, 2023, when he was solely
held on the Department of Correction’s detainer. See Order to Recommit, 11/28/23.
The Board recalculated Petitioner’s maximum sentence date to be March 24, 2026.
See Bd. Action, mailed 11/29/23. Petitioner timely sought administrative relief from

2
Unless otherwise stated, we base the background on the Board’s response to Petitioner’s
correspondence seeking administrative relief, mailed April 30, 2024. See Resp. to
Correspondence, 4/30/24, at 1-3.
3
Relevantly, Petitioner was previously convicted of the drug charges of Manufacture, Sale,
Delivery, or Possession with Intent. See Section 13(a)(30) of the Controlled Substance, Drug,
Device and Cosmetic Act, Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, as amended, 35 P.S. § 780-113(30).
4
See Section 13(a)(30) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S.
§ 780-113(30).
5
Petitioner waived his right to a revocation hearing. See Waiver of Panel Hr’g, 7/7/23.
Revocation Hr’g Report, 7/26/23.

2
both the August and November Board Actions. See Correspondence Received,
8/17/23;6 Correspondence Received, 12/29/23.
On April 30, 2024, the Board affirmed the August and November
decisions, offering three reasons in support. First, Petitioner was denied credit for
time spent at liberty on parole because his new offense was the same or similar to
his original offense, Petitioner had absconded from supervision while on parole, and
he had continued to demonstrate unresolved drug and alcohol issues. The Board
noted, for example, that Petitioner had provided urine samples that tested positive
for THC on May 26, 2022, and June 17, 2022. Second, the Board’s decision to
recommit Petitioner to serve 24 months was within the presumptive range of the new
drug offenses, as the range is 18-24 months. See 37 Pa. Code §§ 75.1-75.2. Third,
Petitioner was not entitled to pre-sentence credit from January 25, 2023, through
October 19, 2023, because he was not held solely on the Board’s warrant. Therefore,
the appropriate one day’s credit to the time remaining on Petitioner’s old sentence,
888 days, yielded 887 days remaining on his original sentence. Adding 887 days to
October 19, 2023, when Petitioner was sentenced, yielded a new maximum sentence
date of March 24, 2026. The Board noted that any credit that had not been credited
to Petitioner’s old sentence would be applied to his new sentence.
Petitioner’s former counsel filed a petition for review on behalf of
Petitioner, arguing that the Board erred in recalculating Petitioner’s maximum date
by denying liberty credit based on reasons not supported by the record made at the
revocation hearing or not made contemporaneous with the decision to recommit. See
Pet. for Rev., 5/20/24. Thereafter, Petitioner’s former counsel filed an application

6
Petitioner deposited his appeal in the mail on August 17, 2023. See Kittrell v. Watson, 88
A.3d 1091, 1097 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (a prisoner’s pro se filing is deemed filed when given to
prison officials or deposited in the prison mailbox).

3
to withdraw, which this Court granted because Petitioner was transferred and no
longer incarcerated in the county served by former counsel’s public defender’s
office. See Appl. to Withdraw, 8/1/24; Cmwlth. Ct. Order Granting Appl. to
Withdraw, 8/6/24.
On November 6, 2024, Counsel entered his appearance for Petitioner.
However, Counsel filed an application to withdraw as counsel and a Turner letter,
asserting that Petitioner’s issues lacked merit.
II. APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW7
We first consider whether Counsel’s letter and application to withdraw
comply with the Turner/Finley requirements. A Turner letter must detail “the nature
and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing the issues which the
petitioner wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues lack merit,
and requesting permission to withdraw.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 977
A.2d 19, 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (quoting Turner, 544 A.2d at 928, stating that
counsel’s letter must detail “the nature and extent of [counsel’s] review and list[]
each issue the petitioner wished to have raised, with counsel’s explanation of why
those issues are meritless”).

7
Initially, appointed counsel was required to file an Anders brief, which included a neutral
presentation of the legal issues. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v.
McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), abrogated on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Santiago,
978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Later, the United States Supreme Court reasoned that the substantive
Anders requirements did not apply where there was no constitutional right to counsel, see
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987), and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a less
stringent standard in which appointed counsel was required to provide a “no-merit” letter, “which
details the nature and extent of the attorney’s review and lists 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, 959 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (discussing Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 928 (Pa. 1988))
(cleaned up).

4
Further, before any request to withdraw may be considered, appointed
counsel must: (1) notify the client of his request to withdraw, (2) furnish the client
with a copy of his no-merit letter, and (3) provide the client with a statement advising
the client of his right to retain new counsel or raise any points he may deem worthy
of consideration in a pro se brief. See Zerby, 964 A.2d at 960; White v. Pa. Bd. of
Prob. & Parole, 276 A.3d 1247, 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022); Craig v. Pa. Bd. of Prob.
& Parole, 502 A.2d 758 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). If counsel satisfies these technical
requirements, we must then conduct our own review of the merits of the case. See
Zerby, 964 A.2d at 960. If we agree that the claims are without merit, we will permit
counsel to withdraw and deny relief. See id.
Instantly, upon review, Counsel has satisfied these requirements. See
id. Counsel has identified the issue raised by Petitioner in his appeal. See Counsel’s
Turner Letter. After conducting a review of the certified record and conversing with
Petitioner, Counsel concluded that Petitioner’s claims lack merit. See id. Counsel’s
Turner letter outlines the issue raised by Petitioner, provides justifications for the
Board’s denial of credit for time Petitioner spent at liberty on parole, and the Board’s
recalculation of Petitioner’s maximum sentence date. See id. Counsel has also
served Petitioner with the application to withdraw and Turner letter. See id., Proof
of Serv.; Appl. to Withdraw, Proof of Serv. Further, Counsel represents that he
advised Petitioner of the right to retain new counsel or raise any points that he might
deem worthy of consideration.8 The record reflects that Petitioner did not retain new

8
This Court has often accepted such averments from counsel as satisfactory. See, e.g., Moy
v. Pa. Parole Bd. (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 359 C.D. 2023, filed Sept. 18, 2024) (accepting counsel’s bald
averment that he had informed the petitioner of his rights); Mills v. Pa. Parole Bd. (Pa. Cmwlth.
No. 255 C.D. 2023, filed April 10, 2024) (accepting counsel’s averment detailing when and how
counsel advised petitioner of his rights); but see Walker v. Pa. Parole Bd. (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 492
C.D. 2023, filed Jan. 7, 2026 (Dumas, J., dissenting) (advocating for consistent enforcement of the
technical requirements identified in Zerby).

5
counsel or file a pro se response. Accordingly, we review the merits of Petitioner’s
appeal.
III. DISCUSSION9
Counsel’s Turner/Finley letter raises one issue. Petitioner asserts that
the Board erred in recalculating his parole violation maximum date by denying him
credit for reasons that were either unsupported by the record developed at the
revocation hearing or not made contemporaneously with the decision to recommit.
The Board has the discretion to award credit for time spent at liberty on
parole but is not required to do so, provided it articulates the basis for its decision.
See Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 159 A.3d 466, 473-75 (Pa. 2017); see also
61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1)(i)-(ii).
Here, the Board indicated that it did not grant Petitioner credit for three
reasons: first, because Petitioner had been convicted of a new crime that was the
same or similar to his original offense; second, because Petitioner absconded while
on parole; and third, because Petitioner continued to demonstrate unresolved drug
and alcohol issues. See Revocation Hr’g Report, 7/26/23. The Board also noted that
Petitioner had made threats to field supervision staff. See id.
This reasoning is sufficient to deny Petitioner credit for time spent at
liberty on parole and is supported by the record. See Pittman, 159 A.3d at 474-75.
Accordingly, the Board did not err or abuse its discretion, and this issue is without
merit. See Fisher, 62 A.3d at 1075 n.1; Zerby, 964 A.2d at 960.

9
Our review is limited to determining whether the Board committed an error of law, whether
its findings are supported by substantial evidence, and whether the exercise of its discretion
violated constitutional rights. Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1075 n.1 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2013); see also Section 704 of the Admin. Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704.

6
IV. CONCLUSION
Counsel has fulfilled the requirements of Turner/Finley, and our
independent review of the record confirms that Petitioner’s appeal lacks merit.
Accordingly, we grant Counsel’s application to withdraw his appearance and affirm
the Board’s decision. See Zerby, 964 A.2d at 960.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

7
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jalil Ellman, :
Petitioner :
: No. 630 C.D. 2024
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 2026, the Application to Withdraw,
filed by appointed counsel, Robert M. Varano, Esq., on December 9, 2024, is
GRANTED, and the order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board, mailed April 30, 2024,
is AFFIRMED.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge