Wesley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding counsel’s Anders brief was facially defective because it failed to address two of the four issues the petitioner raised in his petition for review
• explaining that because, under Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988
• explaining that because, under Turner, a no-merit letter requires less than an Anders brief, “an An-ders brief must contain at a minimum, the list of issues raised by petitioner and explanation of why those issues are meritless that is required of a no-merit letter”
• this Court \does not reach an examination of the merits of the appeal until it is satisfied that counsel has discharged its responsibility in complying with the technical requirements of an Anders brief or a no-merit letter\
• this Court “does not reach an examination of the merits of the appeal until it is satisfied that counsel has discharged its responsibility in complying with the technical requirements of an Anders brief or a no-merit letter”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).