Allen v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections
103 A.3d 365
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Todd Allen, serving at SCI-Greene, was convicted of possession with intent to deliver ~4.5 g crack and received an original split sentence (house arrest + probation) in 2003.
- After multiple probation violations, Allen received a third VOP re-sentence on Dec. 15, 2009: 59 to 119 months, with the sentencing order stating: “credit for any time previously served on this matter as determined by prisons.”
- Allen served approximately 3 years and 8 months on an earlier (first VOP) sentence (June 29, 2004–Jan. 12, 2007 and Apr. 17, 2007–June 9, 2008) and asked DOC to apply that time as credit to the 2009 sentence.
- DOC refused, asserting it already applied that custody time to the earlier sentence and that duplicate credit is impermissible; DOC also argued the statutory maximum may be 15 years (so no illegal aggregate sentence) and alternative remedies exist.
- Allen filed a mandamus petition in Commonwealth Court seeking an order compelling DOC to apply the sentenced credit; the court considered DOC’s demurrer and Allen’s application for summary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allen has a clear right to credit for time previously served | Allen: sentencing order expressly awards credit; DOC must apply ~3 yrs 8 mos to third VOP sentence; without credit aggregate exceeds statutory max making sentence illegal | DOC: challenge implicates sentence legality; underlying offense may carry 15-year max so aggregate does not exceed maximum; no clear right to credit | Held: Allen has a clear right — the sentencing order unambiguously awarded credit and DOC failed to implement it |
| Whether DOC has a corresponding ministerial duty to apply the credit | Allen: DOC must faithfully implement the court's sentencing order and compute credits accordingly | DOC: it lawfully computed custody time toward earlier sentence and need not give duplicate credit; enforcement is not a ministerial act here | Held: DOC has a duty to honor the sentencing court’s clear credit directive; demurrer overruled |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy (no adequate alternative remedies) | Allen: challenge is to DOC’s computation, not to the sentence’s propriety; PCRA is not a vehicle to correct DOC’s computation; Commonwealth Court is proper forum | DOC: the issue is sentence legality / should be litigated in sentencing court, on direct appeal, or via PCRA | Held: Mandamus appropriate — PCRA does not address computation errors and sentencing court advised Allen to file in Commonwealth Court; no adequate alternative remedy |
| Whether the possible statutory maximum (10 v. 15 years) precludes relief | Allen: sentencing court stated credit; relief depends on the sentencing order, not on unresolved max-term questions | DOC: if max is 15 years, aggregate without credit is lawful, so no relief warranted | Held: Court focused on sentencing order’s clear language rather than resolving max-term dispute and ordered DOC to apply the credit |
Key Cases Cited
- McCray v. Dep’t of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (DOC must faithfully implement court sentences; mandamus may be appropriate)
- McSpadden v. Dep’t of Corr., 886 A.2d 321 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (mandamus review and summary relief standards in DOC computation cases)
- Aviles v. Dep’t of Corr., 875 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (limits on mandamus where sentencing orders are ambiguous)
- Black v. Dep’t of Corr., 889 A.2d 672 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (mandamus can correct DOC’s miscomputation where sentencing order clearly grants credit)
- Oakman v. Dep’t of Corr., 893 A.2d 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (mandamus appropriate when sentencing court expressly awards credit and DOC fails to apply it)
- Oakman v. Dep’t of Corr., 903 A.2d 106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (follow-up decision affirming mandamus relief for credit failures)
- Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 A.3d 1219 (Pa. 2013) (sentencing orders construed to effectuate sentencing judge’s intent)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 662 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. 1995) (credit for prior custody required where failing to do so would create illegal aggregate sentence)