C. Smith v. PA Dept. of Corrections and PBPP, C. Smith v. PA Dept. of Corrections and PBPP

Background

Smith was paroled on 9/28/2011; his original sentence had a maximum date of 5/10/2014 (955 days remaining when paroled).
On 10/21–22/2012 Smith was arrested on new charges and a Board detainer was lodged; he remained confined on new charges and did not post bail.
On 9/12/2014 Smith pled guilty to fleeing (Dauphin 5781) and the court also resentenced him on a separate theft charge (Dauphin 52) to run consecutively, crediting 275 days to the theft sentence.
The Board recommitted Smith as a convicted parole violator in December 2014, denied him credit for 390 days he spent at liberty on parole, and recalculated his original maximum date by adding 955 days to 12/5/2014, yielding a new max date of 7/17/2017.
Smith sought administrative relief and then judicial review; appointed counsel moved to withdraw as his claims were frivolous, but the Commonwealth Court found counsel’s no-merit submissions insufficient to address constitutional claims.
Citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Pittman, the Commonwealth Court vacated the Board’s order and remanded for the Board to articulate reasons for denying credit under 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2.1); the DOC was dismissed as an improper party.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board must articulate a basis when denying credit for time at liberty on parole under 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2.1)	Smith argued the Board’s denial was arbitrary and violated equal protection and due process; he challenged the lack of explanation for denying 390 days credit.	Board relied on statutory discretion and cited "Aggravated Range" and community safety concerns but provided no detailed contemporaneous explanation.	Court followed Pittman: Board must provide a written statement articulating reasons for denying credit; remand ordered for explanation.
Validity of the Board’s recalculation of Smith’s original maximum sentence date	Smith challenged recalculation and loss of parole-time credit.	Board recalculated by adding remaining 955 days to date parolee again became available (12/5/2014), arguing Smith was not solely in custody on the Board’s warrant before then.	Court found recalculation proper: Smith was not held solely on Board warrant until recommitment; Board lawfully extended max date to 7/17/2017.
Whether counsel may withdraw via no-merit letter without addressing constitutional claims	Smith contended counsel failed to meaningfully address constitutional claims.	Counsel asserted issues were frivolous and sought withdrawal under Turner/Anders-style procedures.	Court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw because prior no-merit submissions failed to analyze Smith’s constitutional claims; counsel must better explain why claims lack merit (but remand proceeded on Pittman ground).
Whether DOC is a proper party to appeal of Board recommitment	Smith included DOC as a respondent.	DOC argued it is not involved in Board recommitment decisions and thus is an improper party.	Court dismissed DOC from the appeal as not a proper party.

Key Cases Cited

Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017) (Board must articulate basis for denying convicted parole violator credit for time at liberty on parole)
Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (Board’s recalculation of maximum date does not usurp court’s sentencing function)
Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (when presentence incarceration while held on both Board warrant and new charges exceeds new sentence, credit must be applied to original sentence)
Richards v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 20 A.3d 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (Board may extend a parolee’s maximum date to include time spent at liberty on parole upon recommitment)
Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (no credit toward original sentence when prisoner is confined on both new charges and a Board detainer and not held solely on the Board warrant)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel’s no-merit letter in collateral/parole matters)