T. Williams v. PA BPP ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •             IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Tyrell Williams,                             :
    Petitioner              :
    :
    v.                      :    No. 398 C.D. 2015
    :    Submitted: December 18, 2015
    Pennsylvania Board of Probation              :
    and Parole,                                  :
    Respondent                  :
    BEFORE:       HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge1
    HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
    HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
    SENIOR JUDGE COLINS                                              FILED: March 7, 2016
    Tyrell Williams (Inmate) petitions this Court, pro se, for review of a
    determination of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) that
    denied his administrative appeal of a Board order that recommitted him as a
    convicted parole violator to serve backtime. Finding no error, we affirm.
    In 2008, Inmate was sentenced to a term of 1 year and 8 months to 5
    years of incarceration on convictions for violation of a prior probation and for
    Drug Manufacture, Sale, Delivery or Possession with the Intent to Distribute.
    (Supplemental Certified Record (R.) at 1, 5/7/08 Sentence Status Summary.) The
    original maximum date for this sentence was July 8, 2012. (Id.; R. at 73-74, Parole
    1
    This case was assigned to the opinion writer on or before December 31, 2015, when President
    Judge Pellegrini assumed the status of senior judge.
    Revocation Hearing Transcript (H.T.) at 5-6.) On April 5, 2010, Inmate was
    released on parole. (R. at 17, Order to Release on Parole; R. at 74, H.T. at 6.) On
    April 1, 2010, prior to his release on parole, Inmate signed conditions governing
    his parole.     (R. at 12-15, Conditions Governing Parole/Reparole.)              Those
    conditions of parole specifically advised Inmate that:
    If you are convicted of a crime committed while on
    parole/reparole, the Board has the authority, after an
    appropriate hearing, to recommit you to serve the balance of
    the sentence or sentences which you were serving when
    paroled /reparoled, with no credit for time at liberty on parole.
    (R. at 12, Conditions Governing Parole/Reparole ¶7.) At the time of his release,
    Inmate had 2 years, 3 months, and 3 days remaining on his original sentence. (R.
    at 17, Order to Release on Parole.)
    On October 29, 2012, Inmate was arrested by the Williamsport Police
    Department and charged with Robbery, Criminal Conspiracy, Theft by Unlawful
    Taking, and Simple Assault for acts committed on January 6, 2012, before his
    parole ended on July 8, 2012. (R. at 21, Criminal Arrest and Disposition Report;
    R. at 26, 31, Criminal Docket; R. at 75, H.T. at 7.) Inmate was held on those
    charges in the Lycoming County Prison from November 4, 2012, when bail was set
    at $175,000 and he did not post bail. (R. at 21, Criminal Arrest and Disposition
    Report; R. at 26-27, Criminal Docket.) In October 2013, Inmate was convicted in
    the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County of Robbery, Theft by Unlawful
    Taking, and Simple Assault. (R. at 22, Criminal Arrest and Disposition Report; R.
    at 32, 36, Criminal Docket.) Inmate was sentenced on March 27, 2014, to a term
    of 6 to 12 years of incarceration followed by a consecutive 8 year term of
    probation. (R. at 23-25, Sentencing Order; R. at 32, Criminal Docket.)
    2
    On August 9, 2014, the Board notified Inmate that it intended to hold
    a parole revocation hearing based on his conviction on the new charges, and a
    revocation hearing was held on August 27, 2014. (R. at 55, Notice of Charges and
    Hearing; R. at 69-84, H.T.) Following that hearing, based on Inmate’s conviction
    and its conclusion that he was a threat to the safety of the community, the Board
    ordered Inmate recommitted as a convicted parole violator to serve the time
    remaining on his original sentence at the time of his 2010 parole, with no credit for
    his time at liberty on parole. (R. at 61-68, Hearing Report; R. at 86-87, Order to
    Recommit.) In its Order to Recommit, the Board recalculated Inmate’s maximum
    sentence date to December 28, 2016. (R. 86, Order to Recommit.) This new
    maximum sentence date was based on the fact that Inmate had 2 years, 3 months,
    and 3 days remaining on his original sentence and the determination that Inmate
    became available to serve that backtime on September 25, 2014.                     (Id.)   On
    December 4, 2014, the Board mailed Inmate notice of its decision recommitting
    him as a convicted parole violator to serve his unexpired term and changing his
    new maximum sentence date to December 28, 2016. (R. at 88-89, Notice of Board
    Decision.) Inmate, on December 29, 2014, filed an administrative appeal from this
    decision, which the Board denied on March 11, 2015. (R. at 90-95, Request for
    Administrative Remedy; R. at 97-98, Board Decision.) Inmate thereafter timely
    filed this petition for review of the Board’s decision.
    On appeal,2 Inmate asserts two arguments: 1) that the Board could not
    recommit him because his original maximum sentence had expired before he was
    charged with and convicted of the new crimes; and 2) that the Board’s
    2
    Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the
    adjudication was in accordance with law, and whether necessary findings were supported by
    substantial evidence. Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 
    77 A.3d 66
    ,
    70 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
    3
    recalculation of his maximum sentence date constituted an illegal extension of his
    original judicially imposed sentence. Neither of these arguments is meritorious.
    It is well settled that the Board has jurisdiction to recommit a parolee,
    after his maximum sentence date, for crimes committed while he was still on
    parole, even if he was not charged with and convicted of those crimes until after
    his maximum sentence expired.         61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(1); Miskovitch v.
    Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 
    77 A.3d 66
    , 73-74 (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2013); Reavis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 
    909 A.2d 28
    , 34
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); Adams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 
    885 A.2d 1121
    , 1124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). Section 6138(a)(1) of the Prisons and Parole
    Code permits the Board to recommit as a convicted parole violator any parolee
    who, during the period of parole or while delinquent on
    parole, commits a crime punishable by imprisonment, for
    which the parolee is convicted or found guilty by a judge
    or jury or to which the parolee pleads guilty or nolo
    contendere at any time thereafter in a court of record ....
    61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(1) (emphasis added). The critical issue is thus not when the
    parolee was charged with the crime or convicted, but whether he committed the
    crime for which he was ultimately convicted before his parole ended. 
    Adams, 885 A.2d at 1124
    & n.6 (interpreting substantially identical language in prior statute,
    Section 21.1 of Parole Act, Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, added by Act of
    August 24, 1951, P.L. 1401, formerly, 61 P.S. § 331.21a, repealed by Act of
    August 11, 2009, P.L. 147). Because the crimes for which Inmate was convicted
    were committed on January 6, 2012, before the July 8, 2012 expiration of his
    maximum sentence date, the fact that he was not charged or convicted until after
    July 8, 2012 is irrelevant, and the Board did not err in recommitting Inmate as a
    convicted parole violator. 
    Miskovitch, 77 A.3d at 73-74
    (upholding recommitment
    4
    where crime was committed before maximum sentence date even though parolee
    did not plead guilty to crime until more than a year and one half after original
    sentence expired); 
    Reavis, 909 A.2d at 31-32
    , 34 (upholding recommitment
    following 2003 guilty plea, even though maximum sentence date expired in 1993,
    because crime to which parolee pleaded guilty was committed in 1990); 
    Adams, 885 A.2d at 1122
    , 1124 & n.6 (upholding recommitment because crime was
    committed before expiration of maximum sentence date, notwithstanding fact that
    parolee was charged with the crime nearly three months after maximum sentence
    date expired).
    Inmate’s second argument is equally invalid. The Board’s extension
    of Inmate’s maximum sentence date based on the length of time that he was at
    liberty on parole does not alter his judicially imposed sentence; rather, it merely
    requires him to serve his full original sentence. Young v. Pennsylvania Board of
    Probation and Parole, 
    409 A.2d 843
    , 845-48 (Pa. 1979); Ohodnicki v.
    Pennsylvania Board of Parole, 
    211 A.2d 433
    , 435 (Pa. 1965); Davidson v.
    Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 
    33 A.3d 682
    , 685-86 (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2011). Time spent at liberty on parole does not constitute service of a sentence of
    incarceration. 
    Young, 409 A.2d at 846
    (“Mere lapse of time without imprisonment
    . . . does not constitute service of sentence”) (quoting Anderson v. Corall, 
    263 U.S. 193
    (1923)).
    Under the Prisons and Parole Code, a recommitted parolee must serve
    the remainder of his term that he had not yet served at the time of his parole unless
    the Board exercises discretion to award credit for time spent at liberty on parole.
    61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(2), (2.1). Here, the Board acted within its discretion in
    declining to award Inmate credit for the time that he spent at liberty on parole, and
    the backtime that it added to his maximum sentence date consists only of the 2
    5
    years, 3 months, and 3 days of his original sentence that he never served. Inmate’s
    reliance on McCauley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 
    510 A.2d 877
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), is therefore misplaced. In McCauley, this Court held that
    the Board could not require an inmate to serve backtime that would exceed the
    time remaining on his unexpired sentence. 
    McCauley, 510 A.2d at 879
    n.8. In this
    case, the backtime did not exceed the remainder of Inmate’s unexpired sentence.
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board.
    __________ ___________________________
    JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
    6
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Tyrell Williams,                     :
    Petitioner        :
    :
    v.                :   No. 398 C.D. 2015
    :
    Pennsylvania Board of Probation      :
    and Parole,                          :
    Respondent          :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2016, the order of the
    Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in the above-captioned matter is
    AFFIRMED.
    __________ ___________________________
    JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge