C. Mickens v. PA BPP
1671 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 23, 2016Background
- Clinton Mickens was paroled in 2011 after a state sentence. He was arrested in 2013 for multiple alleged drug sales to a confidential informant and later pled guilty to new charges.
- The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole recommitted Mickens as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to serve 24 months backtime, pending other proceedings.
- Mickens administratively appealed, arguing his parole agent knew of earlier criminal acts (June 25, 2012 and March 18, 2013) but failed to detain him, and that this amounted to sentencing entrapment because he later committed additional acts on August 13, 2013.
- The Board dismissed the administrative appeal for failing to present adequate factual or legal points and affirmed the recommitment.
- Court-appointed counsel filed a Turner/Anders-style no-merit letter seeking leave to withdraw; the court independently reviewed the appeal.
- The court held that sentencing entrapment is a criminal-law defense unrelated to the Board’s administrative recommitment (backtime) decision and affirmed the Board; counsel’s withdrawal was permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parole agent’s prior knowledge and delay in detaining Mickens constitutes sentencing entrapment that invalidates Board recommitment | Mickens: agent knew of earlier crimes but did not detain him, enabling further crimes; this is sentencing entrapment | Board: sentencing entrapment is a defense in criminal proceedings and does not affect administrative recommitment/backtime | The court held sentencing entrapment relates to criminal sentencing, not Board backtime; it does not invalidate the recommitment |
| Whether the administrative appeal stated adequate factual/legal grounds | Mickens: raised agent conduct and entrapment as basis to reverse recommitment | Board: appeal failed to identify any procedural, evidentiary, or calculation error by the Board | The court agreed the appeal did not show Board error; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether counsel’s Turner/Anders withdrawal procedures were satisfied | Counsel: complied with requirements, provided no-merit letter and notice to Mickens | Mickens: (could retain counsel or file pro se brief) | The court found counsel met Turner/Anders requirements and permitted withdrawal |
| Scope of court review of Board action | Mickens: sought reversal based on alleged entrapment/public-interest fairness | Board: court review limited to constitutional error, legal error, or lack of substantial evidence | The court applied its limited scope and found no basis to reverse the Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kittrell, 19 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2011) (defines sentencing entrapment and the heavy burden to prove outrageous government conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Petzold, 701 A.2d 1363 (Pa. Super. 1997) (describes sentencing entrapment as a defense that can affect criminal sentencing)
- Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (distinguishes judicial sentences from Board-ordered backtime and explains backtime is unrelated to new criminal sentences)
- Encarnacion v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 990 A.2d 123 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (outlines Turner/Anders withdrawal procedure requirements for appointed counsel)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes counsel’s procedural obligations when seeking to withdraw on grounds of no meritorious appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (Pennsylvania standard for counsel’s withdrawal when appeal is deemed meritless)