Baasit v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 222

Inmate (Ismail Baasit) was paroled from a 5–12 year Pennsylvania sentence (max date Mar. 22, 2012) and later arrested on state charges (Nov. 26, 2007); the Board lodged a detainer.
Federal authorities arrested Inmate (detention order Aug. 29, 2008); he pled guilty to federal charges in Aug. 2010 and was sentenced to 48 months on Aug. 27, 2012, with the federal term ordered consecutive to any sentence he was "now serving or for which he is being held."
The Board recommitted Inmate as a convicted parole violator and recalculated his state maximum by crediting 277 days (Nov. 26, 2007–Aug. 29, 2008) but denied additional pre‑federal confinement credit, resulting in a recalculated state max of Oct. 10, 2016.
Inmate administratively appealed, arguing the Board should have credited all pre‑federal confinement to his state backtime (relying on §6138(a)(5.1), primary jurisdiction, Martin equity arguments, and the fact the federal judgment ran consecutive to the state sentence).
The Board denied relief relying on Gaito (no credit to original sentence when confinement is for new charges) and noting federal custody/accounting issues; Inmate petitioned for judicial review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board must credit all pre‑federal confinement to Inmate's state parole backtime	All pre‑federal confinement between Board detainer (Nov. 2007) and return to state custody should be credited to state backtime; §6138(a)(5.1) and primary jurisdiction support this	Board credited only 277 days (period when solely on Board warrant); remaining time was under federal custody/availability to serve backtime did not exist; Gaito limits credit	Court vacated Board order and remanded to reconsider credit under §6138(a)(5.1), primary‑jurisdiction principles, and Martin; Board failed to address §6138(5.1) and its decision was inadequate
Whether federal credit/allocation should be determined by BOP or may be applied by the Board to avoid "dead time"	Because federal judgment gave no federal credit and ran consecutive to state sentence, state credit should be applied to avoid unallocated time; Board must act equitably (Martin)	Federal credit determinations fall to BOP under 18 U.S.C. §3585(b); federal credit cannot be calculated until federal service begins (Wilson); Board cannot grant credit that conflicts with federal authority	Court recognized BOP has authority to compute federal credit and Wilson timing rules, but held that §6138(a)(5.1) and primary jurisdiction principles require the Board to reassess allocation so state backtime is served first and to avoid double‑credit or "dead time"; remand ordered

Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (prevents credit to original sentence when confinement is for new charges absent other grounds)
Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (equitable crediting; Board may allocate pre‑sentence confinement where confinement results from both detainer and new charges)
Bowman v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 930 A.2d 599 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (federal credit determinations rest with BOP; administrative remedies to seek federal credit)
Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (U.S. 1995) (BOP control not always required to constitute "official detention" for credit; clarifies Bail Reform Act issue)
Wilson v. United States, 503 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1992) (district court cannot award §3585(b) credit at sentencing; BOP computes credit administratively when imprisonment commences)
Newman v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 853 A.2d 409 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (primary jurisdiction doctrine: sovereign making first arrest has priority)
McCray v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (credit allocation issues fall to sentencing authority)
United States v. Dennis, 926 F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1991) (under §3585(b), credit cannot be given for time already credited to another sentence)