A. Sharpe v. PBPP
460 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- Sharpe was sentenced in 2009 to 2½ to 8 years (original max date May 20, 2017); paroled in 2013.
- Parole conditions warned that if convicted of a crime while on parole, the Board may recommit the parolee "with no credit for time at liberty on parole."
- In 2014 Sharpe was arrested and later convicted of multiple new offenses; he received an 11‑month to 23‑month sentence and was returned to Board custody on January 13, 2015.
- Sharpe waived counsel and a revocation hearing and admitted the new convictions; the Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator and checked the hearing report box denying credit for street time.
- The Board recalculated Sharpe’s maximum date to August 6, 2018 (adding 1,301 days remaining on his original sentence to his return-to-custody date); Sharpe’s administrative relief petition was denied and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board abused discretion by denying credit for time on parole without a statement of reasons | Sharpe: Section 6138(a)(2.1) gives the Board discretion and the Board failed to meaningfully exercise it by merely checking “No”; that is an abuse of discretion | Board: It exercised discretion by choosing to deny credit and is not required to give reasons; Penn law presumes lawful exercise of discretion | Court: Denial affirmed—Pittman controls; no requirement to state reasons and Board did exercise discretion |
| Whether denial of credit without reasons violates due process | Sharpe: Lack of reasons deprived him of procedural due process | Board: No protected liberty or property interest in credit; statute grants discretion so no due process entitlement | Court: Rejected—no constitutionally protected interest in credit for parole street time; due process claim fails |
| Whether the Board had authority to extend the judicially imposed maximum sentence by denying credit for street time | Sharpe: Board cannot alter a court-imposed sentence; extending max date is beyond Board authority | Board: Longstanding precedent allows recommitment and recalculation of max date to account for unserved time when parolee is convicted before original maximum | Court: Rejected Sharpe—Board may recommit convicted parole violator and withdraw credit for street time, effectively extending max date to account for unserved time |
| Whether the Board’s recalculation exceeded remaining unexpired term (excess backtime) | Sharpe: Implied concern that recalculation improperly lengthened sentence beyond lawful remainder | Board: Calculation aligned with remaining 1,301 days and return date | Court: No error—the Board’s backtime did not exceed the unexpired term; recalculation to Aug. 6, 2018 is correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 131 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (en banc) (Board not required to state reasons when denying credit for parole street time)
- Knisley v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 362 A.2d 1146 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Board may recommit convicted parole violator to serve balance of court‑imposed sentence)
- Richards v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 20 A.3d 596 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (convicted parole violator’s maximum date may be extended to account for all street time)
- Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa.) (Board authority to extend maximum term does not usurp sentencing court or violate due process)
- Young v. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa.) (no entitlement to credit for parole street time as a protected liberty interest)
- Gillespie v. Dep’t of Transp., Bur. of Driver Licensing, 886 A.2d 317 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (distinguishes failure to exercise discretion from an affirmative discretionary choice)