207 A.3d 981
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- Loren Allen was serving an original sentence (7–20 years for robbery) with minimum date Jan 30, 2001 and maximum Jan 30, 2014; he was paroled in July 2011.
- While on parole Allen was convicted in Montgomery County of three burglary counts across two dockets: one count at CR-8612 and two counts at CR-3057; each count carried 3½–8 year sentences, and the trial court ordered sentences to run concurrently with previously imposed sentences.
- In Feb 2015 the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole recommitted Allen as a convicted parole violator (CPV) and imposed 30 months of backtime based on two burglary convictions (CR-3057), while taking no action on the single burglary conviction (CR-8612).
- Department of Corrections records deleted the detainer for CR-8612 once Allen began serving that sentence concurrently with backtime; detainers for CR-3057 remained until Allen began serving those sentences in Sept 2017.
- Allen argued that all new sentences must run concurrently per the trial court’s order and that no detainer remained, so he sought mandamus to compel release. The Board argued it properly paroled Allen to detainers and that the convictions forming the basis for backtime run consecutively as a matter of law.
- The Commonwealth Court granted the Board’s summary relief, denied Allen’s, and dismissed his mandamus petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allen is entitled to mandamus release because all new sentences run concurrently | Allen: Trial court’s concurrent sentencing order means no detainer remains and he must be released | Board: It lawfully recommitted Allen as a CPV and paroled him to detainer sentences; sentences forming basis for backtime run consecutive to original sentence | Court: Denied—where Board imposes backtime based on specific new convictions, those new sentences run consecutive to original, so detainers on CR-3057 remained and mandamus not appropriate |
| Whether parole to a detainer (constructive parole) was proper | Allen: Parole to CR-8612 should have resulted in physical release if no detainers existed | Board: Parole to CR-8612 was to detainer sentences (CR-3057); constructive parole means inmate serves detainer immediately | Court: Held Board properly paroled Allen to detainers and Allen began serving consecutive detainer sentences while administratively at liberty on original sentence |
| Whether Department correctly updated detainer status | Allen: Deletion of one detainer shows no remaining detainer | Board: DOC correctly deleted CR-8612 detainer once Allen began serving it; CR-3057 detainers appropriately remained until served | Court: Agreed with Board—DOC records accurately reflect transition from detainer to current sentences once served |
| Availability of mandamus as remedy to alter recomputation | Allen: Mandamus should correct what he views as improper aggregation | Board: Mandamus is not appropriate where Board acted within statutory authority and facts do not show clear error | Court: Mandamus denied—extraordinary remedy not warranted; Board’s actions lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- McCray v. Dep’t of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (mandamus is extraordinary; standards for relief)
- Allen v. Dep’t of Corr., 103 A.3d 365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (mandamus cannot be used to create rights; may correct clear sentence computation errors)
- Detar v. Beard, 898 A.2d 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (limits on mandamus and review of parole computations)
- Black v. Dep’t of Corr., 889 A.2d 672 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (mandamus as remedy for sentence computation issues)
- Gray v. Dep’t of Justice, 380 A.2d 1330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (when backtime is imposed, new sentences forming basis for backtime must run consecutive to original)
- Weyand v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 503 A.2d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (describing constructive parole/parole to detainer)