Com. of Pa. v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d 1165

Marcus Gibbs was arrested Nov. 17, 2016 on new drug and related charges while on state parole from 2007; he remained detained (never posted $75,000 bail).
He pled guilty to five counts: possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana (small amount), possession of drug paraphernalia, disorderly conduct, and driving with suspended/revoked privileges.
At sentencing (May 31, 2017) the court imposed incarceration on Count 1 (6–12 months) and Count 5 (60 days), plus fines and probation on the other counts.
The trial court credited Gibbs’ pre-sentence custody time to his 2007 sentences (parole revocation detainers) rather than to the new sentences.
Gibbs appealed, arguing the sentencing court must credit his time served against the new sentences because he was detained on both a parole detainer and for failure to post bail on the new charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court erred by failing to award credit for time served on the new docket	Gibbs: time in custody pre-sentencing must be credited to the new sentence because he was arrested on new charges and failed to satisfy bail while also subject to a parole detainer	Commonwealth/Trial court: credit could be applied to the original 2007 sentences (Board detainers) so allocation to old sentence was proper	Vacated and remanded: under governing precedent the trial court must apply Gibbs’ pre-sentence custody credit to the new sentence; if credit exceeds new sentence it may be applied to the original sentence

Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (mandates credit for all incarceration served before sentencing for which defendant is detained).
Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (when confinement results from both a parole detainer and new-charge custody, the Board must credit time to either original or new sentence).
McCray v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (addresses who applies credit when multiple detainers/sentences exist).
Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (where trial court fails to give full credit, defendant’s remedy lies in trial court/direct appeal rather than via the Board).
Commonwealth v. Mann, 957 A.2d 746 (Pa. Super. 2008) (when inmate both has a detainer and failed to satisfy bail, sentencing court must apply pre-sentence custody credit to the new sentence; if new sentence shorter, remaining credit can be applied to original sentence).