Com. v. Cavanaugh, B., Com. v. Cavanaugh, B. No. 902 MDA 2016

Brandon Neil Cavanaugh pled guilty (2007) to aggravated indecent assault of a child <13 and was sentenced to 3–10 years; credit for time served set minimum release date July 25, 2010 and maximum July 25, 2017.
The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole paroled Cavanaugh on July 31, 2012.
Cavanaugh was arrested for new charges on August 1, 2013; the Board placed a parole detainer for a technical violation; Cavanaugh pleaded guilty to the new charges and received 1.5–3 years (April 22, 2014).
The Board recalculated Cavanaugh’s maximum release date for the original sentence to April 16, 2019, based on recommitment as a convicted parole violator; Cavanaugh appealed to the Board and was denied on February 9, 2016.
After his administrative appeal period lapsed, Cavanaugh filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus in the trial court (May 11, 2016) challenging the Board’s recalculation; the trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding that challenges to Board decisions (including recalculation of maximum dates) fall within the Commonwealth Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction and that the Board has statutory authority to recalculate maximums on recommitment.

Issue	Cavanaugh’s Argument	Commonwealth / Board’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a habeas petition attacking the Board’s recalculation of his maximum sentence	Trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce or protect its original sentencing order from alteration by a non-judicial body	Appeals from Board decisions are exclusively within the Commonwealth Court’s appellate jurisdiction; the Board has statutory authority to recalculate maximums	Trial court lacked jurisdiction; Superior Court affirmed dismissal
Whether the Board illegally extended Cavanaugh’s maximum sentence in violation of constitutional rights	The Board unlawfully extended the court-imposed maximum, usurping judicial authority and violating constitutional rights	The Board lawfully may recommit and recalculate maximums for convicted parole violators under statute; administrative remedies exist	Not reached on the merits because of lack of jurisdiction

Eckert v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 390 A.2d 1030 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (Board may extend maximum upon recommitment)
Commonwealth v. McDermott, 547 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Super. 1988) (appellate review of Board orders lies in Commonwealth Court)
Commonwealth v. Fells, 518 A.2d 544 (Pa. 1986) (questions concerning Board orders are for appellate jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court)
Evans v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 713 A.2d 741 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (appeal from Board decision extending maximum date is in Commonwealth Court)
Com., Dept. of Corrections v. Reese, 774 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2001) (discussing exclusive Board powers and appellate jurisdiction)