D.C. Smeltzer v. PBPP ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Daniel Clarence Smeltzer,                     :
    Petitioner                  :
    :
    v.                              :
    :
    Pennsylvania Board of Probation and           :
    Parole,                                       :   No. 1049 C.D. 2019
    Respondent                   :   Submitted: July 17, 2020
    BEFORE:       HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
    HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
    HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
    JUDGE COVEY                                       FILED: August 19, 2020
    Daniel Clarence Smeltzer (Smeltzer), pro se, petitions this Court for
    review of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s1 (Board) July 8, 2019
    order (Order) dismissing his administrative appeal as untimely. There are two issues
    before this Court: (1) whether the Board properly concluded that Smeltzer’s request
    for administrative relief was untimely; and (2) whether the Board erred by not
    crediting Smeltzer with time spent on constructive parole.2 After review, we affirm.
    On January 3, 2011, Smeltzer was sentenced to 3 to 6 years of
    incarceration for robbery and criminal conspiracy (Original Sentence). See Certified
    1
    Subsequent to the filing of the petition for review, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation
    and Parole was renamed the Pennsylvania Parole Board. See Sections 15, 16, and 16.1 of the Act of
    December 18, 2019, P.L. 776, No. 115 (effective February 18, 2020); see also Sections 6101 and
    6111(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code, as amended, 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101, 6111(a).
    2
    “A prisoner on constructive parole is paroled from his original sentence to immediately
    begin serving a new sentence.” Spruill v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 
    158 A.3d 727
    , 730 (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 2017).
    Record (C.R.) at 1. On August 18, 2016, the Board paroled Smeltzer to a state
    detainer sentence.3 See C.R. at 6. At that time, his Original Sentence maximum
    release date (maximum date) was November 7, 2018. See C.R. at 4-6. On July 15,
    2017, the Board paroled Smeltzer from the state detainer sentence. See C.R. at 18.
    On October 2, 2017, new criminal charges were filed against Smeltzer, and the Board
    issued a warrant to detain him. See C.R. at 26-39, 46. Although bail was set on the
    new criminal charges on April 17, 2018, Smeltzer did not post bail. See C.R. at 74.
    On December 31, 2018, Smeltzer pled guilty to the new criminal charges and was
    subsequently sentenced to 30 days to 6 months of incarceration in a county prison.
    See C.R. at 75, 132, 193. On April 12, 2019, the Board mailed Smeltzer a decision
    (Decision), therein denying him credit for his time at liberty on constructive parole
    and recalculating his maximum date as March 20, 2021. See C.R. at 161-162.
    On June 17, 2019, Smeltzer completed a request for administrative relief
    (Administrative Relief Request) challenging the Decision, and mailed it to the Board
    with a June 21, 2019 postmark. See C.R. at 166-170. Smeltzer argued therein, inter
    alia, that he was entitled to credit for the time he served on constructive parole, and
    explained that his Administrative Relief Request was untimely due to erroneous
    information provided to him by prison staff. See C.R. at 169. On July 8, 2019, the
    Board mailed the Order dismissing Smeltzer’s Administrative Relief Request as
    3
    Smeltzer had been released on parole and reincarcerated at least once before this date;
    however, those dates are not relevant for purposes of this appeal.
    2
    untimely.4 See C.R. at 177-178. Smeltzer appealed to this Court.5
    Smeltzer contends that the Board erred in calculating his new maximum
    date by failing to credit him for time he spent on constructive parole. The Board
    responds that it properly dismissed Smeltzer’s Administrative Relief Request as
    untimely.
    This Court has explained that “[t]he appeal process available to an
    inmate who seeks the recalculation of his maximum [] date is found [in Section
    73.1(b)(1) of the Board’s Regulations,] 
    37 Pa. Code § 73.1
    (b)(1).” Evans v. Pa.
    Dep’t of Corr., 
    713 A.2d 741
    , 743 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). Prisoners may petition for
    administrative relief within 30 days of the mailing date of the Board’s decision. See
    
    37 Pa. Code § 73.1
    (b)(1). “[P]etitions for administrative review which are out of
    time . . . will not be received.” 
    37 Pa. Code § 73.1
    (b)(3). Thus, when a prisoner
    4
    On July 16 and 17, 2019, Smeltzer sent the Board correspondence objecting to the
    recalculated maximum date and requesting that his maximum date be corrected. On August 19,
    2019, the Board granted Smeltzer’s request for relief and reversed the April 12, 2019 Decision
    “with regard[] to the max[imum] date . . . .” C.R. at 224. The response further notified Smeltzer:
    “If you wish to contest the new . . . max[imum] date, you may file an administrative appeal/petition
    for administrative review from the [B]oard action recorded August 19, 2019.” 
    Id.
     Smeltzer did not
    file an appeal therefrom. The Board expounded in its brief:
    Despite properly dismissing Smeltzer’s untimely [Administrative
    Relief Request], the Board subsequently corrected a calculation error
    and established the parole violation maximum date on his [O]riginal
    [S]entence as January 3, 2021. Smeltzer did not file a request for
    administrative relief from the new decision or seek to amend his
    appellate petition for review. Accordingly, any challenge to the
    current parole violation maximum date on Smeltzer’s [O]riginal
    [S]entence is not properly before the [C]ourt.
    Board Br. at 7.
    5
    “Our scope of review of the Board’s decision denying administrative relief is limited to
    determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, an error of
    law was committed, or constitutional rights have been violated.” Kazickas v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. &
    Parole, 
    226 A.3d 109
    , 115 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (quoting Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 
    62 A.3d 1073
    , 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)).
    3
    filing a request for administrative relief does not meet the 30-day deadline, the
    request will be dismissed as untimely.
    Here, because the Board mailed its Decision on April 12, 2019, pursuant
    to Section 73.1(b)(1) of the Board’s Regulations, Smeltzer’s Administrative Relief
    Request had to be filed no later than May 12, 2019.6                 Smeltzer signed his
    Administrative Relief Request on June 17, 2019, see C.R. at 166, and mailed it to the
    Board on June 21, 2019. See C.R. at 170. Thus, the Administrative Relief Request
    was untimely. The Board did not address Smeltzer’s explanation for his untimeliness
    in its Order.
    Importantly, although Smeltzer raised the issue of the untimely filing of
    his Administrative Relief Request in his petition for review filed with this Court,
    Smeltzer does not address the Board’s determination that the Administrative Relief
    Request was untimely, nor challenge the Board’s failure to address his explanation
    for his untimeliness in its Order in his brief to this Court. The law is well settled that
    issues raised in a petition for review but not addressed in an appellate brief are
    waived. See Yannone v. Town of Bloomsburg Code Appeal Bd., 
    218 A.3d 1002
    , 1009
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Aveline v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 
    729 A.2d 1254
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)) (“[T]his Court will deem an issue abandoned where it has been
    identified on appeal but not properly developed in appellant’s brief.”); see also
    6
    Consistent with Section 73.1(b)(1) of the Board’s Regulations, the Decision informed
    Smeltzer that:
    THIS DECISION INVOLVES AN ISSUE THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE
    BOARD’S ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROCESS.          FAILURE TO
    ADMINISTRATIVELY APPEAL THE DECISION MAY AFFECT YOUR
    LEGAL RIGHTS.    IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, YOU
    MUST FILE A REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF WITH THE
    BOARD WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE MAILING DATE OF THIS
    DECISION.
    C.R. at 162 (citation omitted; bold emphasis added).
    4
    Chesson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 
    47 A.3d 875
     (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
    Accordingly, Smeltzer waived the untimely filing issue.
    For all of the above reasons, the Board’s Order is affirmed.7
    ___________________________
    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
    7
    Because this Court concludes that Smeltzer waived the timeliness issue on appeal, the
    Court need not address Smeltzer’s substantive argument that the Board failed to credit him for time
    spent on constructive parole. Notwithstanding, the law is well-established that “[u]nder [Section
    6138(a)(2) of the Prisons and Parole Code,] 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2), a parolee’s time under
    constructive parole is forfeited upon his recommitment as a convicted parole violator.” Spruill, 158
    A.3d at 730.
    5
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Daniel Clarence Smeltzer,                :
    Petitioner             :
    :
    v.                           :
    :
    Pennsylvania Board of Probation and      :
    Parole,                                  :   No. 1049 C.D. 2019
    Respondent              :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2020, the Pennsylvania Board of
    Probation and Parole’s July 8, 2019 order is affirmed.
    ___________________________
    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge