A.W. Sides v. PBPP
A.W. Sides v. PBPP - 725 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Apr 12, 2017Background
- Anthony Wayne Sides was paroled to Gaudenzia First, a community contract treatment facility in Philadelphia, from Nov 20, 2012 to Mar 26, 2013 as a condition of parole.
- Sides was arrested May 11, 2014, later convicted on new charges, recommitted as a convicted parole violator (CPV), and the Board denied credit for his time at liberty on parole, setting an 18-month backtime.
- Sides sought administrative review seeking credit for his Gaudenzia residency; an evidentiary hearing was held where Sides and a Gaudenzia counselor testified.
- The Board found Gaudenzia was not a secure facility: doors/rooms not locked, no fence or bars, residents could sign out and leave for approved periods without escort, and staff did not refuse departure.
- The Board denied credit; on appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Sides failed to prove the restrictions equated to incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time at Gaudenzia equals incarceration so Sides is entitled to credit for time "at liberty on parole" | Sides: Gaudenzia imposed restrictive conditions (buzzed entry, searches, rules, level system, meetings, head counts, monitoring) making it equivalent to confinement | Board: Gaudenzia lacked essential custodial features (not locked/secured, no fence/bars, residents could leave unescorted and routinely signed out) | Held for Board: substantial evidence supports finding Gaudenzia was not equivalent to incarceration; no credit awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985) (burden on parolee to prove parole restrictions equal incarceration)
- Meleski v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 931 A.2d 68 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (facility security and ability to leave are critical to credit analysis)
- Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 120 A.3d 1116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (parolees not entitled to credit absent proof restrictions equate to incarceration)
- Jackson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 568 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (review limited; Board determinations upheld unless arbitrary or an abuse of discretion)