A. Smith v. PA BPP, A. Smith v. PA BPP

Aaron Smith was paroled on December 18, 2012; he was later arrested (Dec. 27, 2013), convicted (Dec. 15, 2014) of drug offenses, and sentenced on April 30, 2015 to 1½ to 3 years.
The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole held a hearing (Apr. 9, 2015), determined Smith was a convicted parole violator, and by order dated June 18, 2015 forfeited his street time and recommitted him to 18 months backtime.
The Board recalculated Smith’s maximum sentence date to February 17, 2017, after accounting for credit for time incarcerated awaiting sentencing.
Smith administratively appealed, arguing (1) the Board impermissibly altered a judicial sentence by forfeiting street time, (2) 18 months backtime was excessive (he claimed a 6–12 month presumptive range), (3) he was not “at liberty” on parole because he was confined to his home and subject to searches, and (4) he sought restoration of his original maximum date and money damages.
Counsel filed an amended no‑merit letter complying with Zerby/Reavis requirements; the Court evaluated counsel’s letter, granted withdrawal, and independently reviewed the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board impermissibly altered a judicial sentence by forfeiting street time	Smith: forfeiture altered judicially imposed sentence and intruded on judiciary	Board: recommitment to serve unexpired term (backtime) is administrative, not a sentence extension	Held: Board did not alter sentence; it required service of remaining unserved term (backtime)
Whether 18 months backtime was excessive compared to presumptive range	Smith: new conviction warrants 6–12 months, not 18 months	Board: 18 months falls within applicable presumptive range for the felony offense	Held: Court will not review backtime within presumptive range; 18 months acceptable
Whether Smith was not "at liberty" on parole (so should get credit for street time)	Smith: home confinement and searches meant he was not truly at liberty	Board: searches and supervision do not convert parole to incarceration; ‘‘at liberty’’ is not absolute freedom from constraints	Held: Searches and alleged home confinement do not constitute incarceration; Smith was "at liberty" for Code §6138 purposes
Whether Smith is entitled to restoration of max date and money damages	Smith: requests reinstatement of Dec. 18, 2015 max date and damages	Board: recomputation pursuant to forfeiture/backtime and applicable credit rules; no damages	Held: Court affirmed Board’s recalculation and denied relief; no merit to damages claim

Savage v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 761 A.2d 643 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (Board may require parolee to serve remaining unexpired term rather than altering judicial sentence)
Cox v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985) ("at liberty" on parole does not require freedom from all types of confinement)
Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 574 A.2d 558 (Pa. 1990) (courts will not review Board’s imposition of backtime when within presumptive range)
Lotz v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 548 A.2d 1295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (aff’d, 583 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1990)) (same principle regarding presumptive backtime review)
Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (requirements for counsel’s no‑merit letter when seeking to withdraw)
Reavis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 909 A.2d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (procedural requirements for counsel notifying parolee and providing no‑merit letter)