C. Heidelberg, Jr. v. PA BPP
661 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 20, 2017Background
- Heidelberg was paroled from a state sentence (4½ to 14 years) on Feb. 14, 2011 and later arrested (Mar. 28, 2014) and convicted on new county/state charges. A Board warrant issued the same day he was detained.
- Common Pleas sentenced Heidelberg on Jan. 26, 2015 to 6–12 months on the new conviction, credited him with 304 days served, and stated the new confinement was “concurrent to any sentence currently serving.”
- The Board revoked parole, recommitted Heidelberg as a convicted parole violator (CPV), denied credit against the original sentence for the 304 days, imposed 15 months of "backtime," set reparole eligibility May 5, 2016, and recalculated his maximum date to Aug. 8, 2021.
- Heidelberg filed two administrative appeals: one (postmarked Feb. 23, 2015) challenging the 15‑month backtime (untimely), and a second (postmarked Apr. 2, 2015) challenging the recalculation/max date and denial of the 304‑day credit (timely as to the March 3, 2015 Board decision).
- The Board dismissed both appeals as untimely; the Commonwealth Court treated the timely second appeal as properly before it and affirmed the Board’s actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board must give credit against original sentence for 304 days the court ordered to run concurrently with the new sentence | Heidelberg: Common Pleas ordered the new sentence to run concurrently and credited 304 days; the Board must honor the court’s order and reduce the original sentence by 304 days | Board: Section 6138(a)(5) of the Code bars concurrent service of new and original terms for CPVs; courts cannot order concurrent service that would shorten backtime | Held: The Board correctly refused credit; under controlling precedent and §6138(a)(5) the new sentence does not run concurrently for parole-credit purposes, so no 304‑day credit against the original sentence |
| Whether Board exceeded presumptive backtime guidelines by imposing 15 months backtime | Heidelberg: 15 months exceeds the combined presumptive ranges (max 12 months) and lacks cited aggravating factors; thus backtime is excessive and affects reparole date | Board: The 15‑month backtime arose from its January 20, 2015 decision; Heidelberg did not timely appeal that decision, so that claim is waived; in any event backtime is part of Board’s revocation authority | Held: The challenge to the 15‑month backtime itself is waived as untimely (no timely appeal of the Jan. 20, 2015 decision). The timely second appeal concerned recalculation/reparole date but not the January backtime decision |
| Whether recalculation of maximum date and reparole eligibility (and alleged miscalculation of backtime affecting reparole date) is remediable given events after filing | Heidelberg: Incorrect calculation deprived him of earlier reparole eligibility | Board: Issue is moot because the reparole eligibility date has passed and the Board already held a reparole interview and denied parole on Mar. 17, 2016 | Held: Moot; Heidelberg already received a reparole interview and denial, so no further relief is available and the exception to mootness does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Zuber v. Commonwealth, 353 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1976) (parole violator must serve backtime and new sentence consecutively; courts cannot order concurrent service to circumvent statute)
- Palmer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 134 A.3d 160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (courts and Board may not impose concurrent sentences that conflict with §6138)
- McCray v. Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (sentencing is judicial function; courts set sentences though agency cannot alter judicial sentence where statute bars it)
- Krantz v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 483 A.2d 1044 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (definition of "backtime" as the portion of an original sentence a CPV must serve before reapplying for parole)