Com. v. Huge, J., Com. v. Huge, J. No. 1033 WDA 2016

Jason Paul Huge was convicted in 2000 of attempted burglary, theft, and conspiracy and received 5–10 years plus 10 years probation; released from prison January 2010 on probation.
Multiple probation/parole revocations followed (2010, 2012, 2015), with various concurrent split sentences (6–23½ months) and credits applied at different times; appellate history includes a prior Superior Court affirmation (Huge).
The dispute centers on allocation of credit for time served between July 17, 2012 and August 26, 2013 while serving two concurrent 6–23½ month sentences and whether credit was improperly applied to one sentence vs. the other.
Appellant sought time-credit relief under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760; the trial court treated the motion as a PCRA petition and denied relief as moot after concluding Appellant had been credited with 500 days which discharged one portion of his sentence.
Appellant appealed the PCRA denial asserting the court erred in allocating time credit so as to effectively extend one sentence; Superior Court reviewed legality of sentence de novo and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in allocating pre-sentencing credit so Appellant effectively received double or misallocated credit	Huge: time served from March 26, 2013 to Aug 26, 2013 should have maxed out the parole portion earlier; allocation to the other sentence was improper	Commonwealth/PCRA court: allocation of credited time between concurrent sentences is within court’s discretion; Appellant cannot receive double credit	Court: No illegal sentence; court may allocate credit among concurrent sentences and Appellant is not entitled to double credit; PCRA denial affirmed

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 967 A.2d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2009) (challenge to denial of credit implicates legality of sentence and is reviewed de novo)
Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (questions of law on sentencing reviewed de novo; nonwaivable legality challenges)
Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defendant not automatically entitled to double credit on concurrent sentences)
McCray v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (VOP judge’s allocation of credit is adequate so long as combined sentences do not exceed statutory maximum)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (motion for time credit may be treated as a PCRA petition)
Commonwealth v. Huge, 75 A.3d 566 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum) (prior appeal rejecting argument that concurrent sentences entitle defendant to duplicate credit)