IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Similar documents
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2014

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 193 MDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

2015 IL App (1st) U. No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) )

TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellant : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : JOSEPH MENDEZ, : Appellee : No.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2013

2016 PA Super 29 OPINION BY JENKINS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, Michael David Zrncic ( Appellant ) appeals pro se from the judgment

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART THREE A CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE APPENDIX

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IAC 7/2/08 Parole Board[205] Ch 11, p.1. CHAPTER 11 PAROLE REVOCATION [Prior to 2/22/89, Parole, Board of[615] Ch 7]

An Introduction to the Federal Public Defender=s Office and the Federal Court System

Court of Appeals of Ohio

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

GETTING TO KNOW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2002 HENRY L. PITTS STATE OF MARYLAND

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

A Federal Criminal Case Timeline

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE 700 Civic Center Drive West P.O. Box Santa Ana, CA (877)

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 8, 2008; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO CA MR

CRIMINAL DEFENSE FAQ. QUESTION: Am I required to allow law enforcement be allowed to search my house or my car?

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Richard P. Glunk, M.D, : Appellant : : v. : No C.D : SUBMITTED: May 17, 2013 Mark Greenwald :

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

Crime. What is the sequence of events in the criminal justice system? Prosecution and pretrial services Refusal to indict.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA JAMES RAY EDGE, JR. A/K/A BUDDY STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, AARON REGINALD CHAMBERS, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR PR Filed March 4, 2015

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE. STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. ) No. 1 CA-SA WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa )

ARTICLE 1.1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

2015 IL App (3d) U. Order filed February 26, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

How to Apply for a Pardon. State of California. Office of the Governor

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 11, 2015 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 108

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs November 04, 2014

Case 1:03-cr LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7. Petitioner, Respondent. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER 1

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STATE OF NEW YORK : : ALLEGANY COUNTY DRUG COUNTY OF ALLEGANY : : TREATMENT COURT. Defendant.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

The Region of Waterloo Drug Treatment Court

Erasing Your Criminal Record: How to Get a Pardon in Pennsylvania

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING COMPLAINT BY PRISONERS UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.

Transcription:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Trevor Raible, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 2648 C.D. 2015 : Submitted: June 10, 2016 Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: July 6, 2016 Trevor Raible (Parolee) petitions for review of the decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) denying him credit for the period at which he was at liberty on parole. We affirm. On May 22, 2011, Parolee was sentenced to 10 months to 2 years, 6 months for violation of his probation and theft of movable property, with a minimum release date of January 11, 2012, and a maximum release date of September 11, 2013. Parolee was released on parole on May 14, 2012.

While on parole, on December 12, 2012, Parolee was arrested on new criminal charges and that same day, the Board lodged its detainer against him. Failing to make bail, he remained in county prison until August 1, 2013, when he was granted Release on Recognizance (ROR) bail for the new charges. He was then arrested on August 15, 2013, on other charges and granted ROR bail on August 19, 2013. Parolee, however, remained incarcerated on the Board s detainer until September 11, 2013, the maximum release date of his original sentence. On December 3, 2014, Parolee pleaded guilty to some of the new criminal charges and the remaining charges against him were dismissed. On December 29, 2014, the Board lodged its detainer against him. The Board issued Parolee a Notice of Charges and Hearing for a revocation hearing stemming from his new criminal convictions, and Parolee waived his right to a revocation hearing and right to counsel. The Board then voted to recommit Parolee as a convicted parole violator and denied him credit for time spent at liberty on parole. The trial court then sentenced Parolee on January 22, 2015, to 12 to 24 months and 6 to 12 months of confinement on his new convictions, to be served concurrently. Parolee was placed in a State Correctional Institution on February 13, 2015. The Board recommitted Parolee as a convicted parole violator and sentenced him to serve the lesser of 18 months or his unexpired term, when available, and recalculated his maximum release date to April 10, 2016. In arriving at that date, the Board determined that Parolee owed 485 days of backtime 2

towards his original sentence because he was paroled on May 14, 2012, and his original maximum release date was September 11, 2013. The Board also provided Parolee with 41 days of backtime served credit for the period of August 1, 2013, to September 11, 2013. Parolee filed a pro se Petition for Administrative Review, challenging the credit awarded and, therefore, the calculation of the maximum release date. The Board denied Parolee s petition, reasoning that he had 485 days remaining on his original sentence at the time of parole and that given Parolee s recommitment as a convicted parole violator, the Board was authorized to recalculate his sentence without providing him credit for the time spent pursuant to Section 6138(a)(2) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Code), 61 Pa. C.S. 6138(a)(2). The Board explained that it gave him 41 days of credit for the period he was incarcerated from August 1, 2013, to September 11, 2013, because he was incarcerated solely on the Board s detainer, but did not grant him credit for any other period of incarceration because he was incarcerated on both the Board detainer and/or new criminal charges. The Board further found that Parolee became available to begin serving backtime on January 22, 2015, when he was sentenced on his new criminal charges. This appeal followed. On appeal, 1 Parolee argues that the Board erred in not awarding him credit on his original sentence for the time he spent at liberty on parole from December 14, 2012, to September 11, 2013. 1 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board s decision is supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether (Footnote continued on next page ) 3

Time incarcerated shall be credited to a convicted parole violator s original term only when he remains incarcerated solely by reason of the Board s detainer. Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. 1980). When bail is not posted, the time period during which a parolee is incarcerated on both new criminal charges and the Board s detainer must apply to the new sentence. Id. Credit will only be applied to a parolee s original sentence when it is not possible to award all of the credit on the new sentence because the period of pre-sentence incarceration exceeds the maximum term of the new sentence. Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348, 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Here, while on parole from his original sentence, Parolee was arrested on December 14, 2012, on new charges and the Board lodged its detainer against him that same day. Parolee remained in county prison until August 1, 2013, when he was granted ROR bail, but remained incarcerated on the Board s detainer until September 11, 2013. Because he was confined solely on the Board s detainer from August 1, 2013, until September 11, 2013, the Board granted Parolee 41 days of credit in calculating his new maximum date. However, Parolee is not entitled to credit from December 14, 2012, through July 31, 2013, as he was confined on both the Board s detainer and his new criminal charges. The credit for this time period shall instead apply to Parolee s new sentence. (continued ) constitutional rights have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. 704; Moroz v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 660 A.2d 131, 132 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 4

Accordingly, we affirm the Board s decision. DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge 5

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Trevor Raible, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 2648 C.D. 2015 : Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, : Respondent : O R D E R AND NOW, this 6 th day of July, 2016, the order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole bearing a mailing date of December 8, 2015, is affirmed. DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge