Commonwealth v. Turner

The Court explained that Anders and McClendon impose demanding procedures designed for direct criminal appeals. Those procedures were not the appropriate measure for collateral PCHA litigation, so the Superior Court erred insofar as it treated compliance with Anders and McClendon as necessary before counsel could withdraw.

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Finley established that the federal constitutional right to appointed counsel does not extend to collateral attacks on criminal convictions. Because the federal constitutional premise for the Anders procedure is absent in PCHA proceedings, Pennsylvania was not required to import Anders's more cumbersome requirements into those proceedings.

Although a PCHA petitioner's right to counsel arises under Pennsylvania procedural rules rather than the federal Constitution, that rule-based right includes the protection of an independent review by competent counsel. The Court adopted the procedure described in the Superior Court's Finley decision as sufficient to safeguard that right.

Under that procedure, counsel must submit a no-merit letter identifying the nature and extent of counsel's review, listing the issues the petitioner wants raised, and explaining why each issue is meritless. The reviewing PCHA court must independently examine the record and concur that the petition lacks merit before allowing counsel to withdraw.

Once counsel has completed that review and the court agrees that the claims are meritless, the petitioner may proceed pro se, retain private counsel, or choose not to continue. The same less-rigid procedure applies at every stage of collateral litigation, in either the trial court or an appellate court.