A. Fisher v. PA BPP, A. Fisher v. PA BPP

Fisher was sentenced to 10–20 years for robbery; original sentences ran from April 11, 2002 to April 11, 2012.
While on parole he resided at Kintock-Erie Community Correction Center (Kintock) from March 25, 2009 to December 21, 2010, then at other approved residences before being arrested on new charges.
Convicted of new offenses and sentenced March 2, 2011 to 7–14 years; Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator and recalculated his maximum to July 11, 2016, denying credit for time at Kintock.
Fisher administratively appealed, asserting Kintock’s conditions were sufficiently restrictive to constitute the equivalent of incarceration (seeking credit for March 25, 2009–December 21, 2010) and an evidentiary hearing was ordered.
At hearing Kintock’s case manager testified residents could leave (sometimes with a pass), doors were locked but not physically secured like a prison, staff would not physically restrain leavers, and a parolee who left without permission would be treated as an absconder but not charged with escape.
The hearing examiner found the Board’s witness credible, denied credit for Kintock time, and the Board affirmed; this Court likewise affirmed and rejected Fisher’s additional, unpreserved credit claims as waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether time at Kintock is creditable as the "equivalent of incarceration" for a convicted parole violator	Fisher: Kintock’s restrictions were equivalent to incarceration; he is entitled to sentencing credit for March 25, 2009–Dec. 21, 2010	Board: Kintock was not sufficiently restrictive; residents could leave and were not physically restrained or charged with escape	Held: Denied — substantial evidence supports finding Kintock not equivalent to incarceration (no credit)
Whether Fisher may obtain credit for other facility stays/dates not raised in his administrative appeal	Fisher: Requests remand to consider additional date ranges/facilities listed in his brief	Board: Issues not raised administratively are waived and cannot be considered on appeal	Held: Denied — claims not raised before the Board are waived and not reviewable here

Cox v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985) (parolee bears burden to show community facility’s characteristics are equivalent to incarceration)
Detar v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 890 A.2d 27 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (critical factors: whether resident is locked in and whether resident may leave without physical restraint)
Figueroa v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 900 A.2d 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (unescorted departure and lack of physical restraint/escape charge weigh against equivalence to incarceration)
McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 631 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (issues not raised before the Board are waived on appellate review)
Steiner v. Markel, 968 A.2d 1253 (Pa. 2009) (appellate courts generally will not reverse on grounds not properly raised and preserved)