Com. v. Lloyd, D., 454 EDA 2016

In 2002 Lloyd was arrested for shooting offenses; a jury convicted him of two counts of third‑degree murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy; he was sentenced in 2005 to an aggregate 16–32 years with credit for pretrial confinement not credited to another sentence.
Lloyd’s direct appeals and state and U.S. Supreme Court petitions were denied; his first PCRA petition (filed 2011) was denied and that denial affirmed in 2013.
In 2015 Lloyd filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming the Pennsylvania DOC miscomputed his credit for time served (from 9/12/2002 to 7/7/2005) after a probation‑revocation sentence was imposed to run consecutive to the instant sentence.
The trial court treated the habeas petition as a second PCRA petition, issued a Rule 907 notice, and dismissed it as untimely under the PCRA; Lloyd appealed pro se.
The Superior Court held Lloyd’s claim challenging the DOC’s computation is not cognizable in the PCRA or by habeas in the trial court; the proper vehicle is an original action in the Commonwealth Court (after exhausting DOC administrative remedies).
The court also noted Lloyd did not raise a legality‑of‑sentence claim below; in any event the record showed the sentencing court had awarded credit for pretrial confinement and the sentence was lawful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Lloyd’s habeas petition as an untimely PCRA petition challenging DOC credit computation	Lloyd argued DOC improperly refused to credit him for time served from 9/12/2002–7/7/2005	Commonwealth argued the petition was a PCRA matter and, as a second/untimely PCRA petition, was properly dismissed	Court held the claim challenging DOC computation is not cognizable under the PCRA; trial court erred to treat it as PCRA, but dismissal is affirmed because habeas was not the proper vehicle and the proper remedy is an original action in Commonwealth Court
Whether Lloyd’s sentence is illegal because he will be incarcerated past his maximum without the disputed credit	Lloyd asserted detention becomes illegal without the additional credit	Commonwealth pointed out Lloyd conceded the sentence was lawful and record shows credit was given by the sentencing court	Court held Lloyd did not raise a legality‑of‑sentence claim below; regardless, the sentence is lawful and the sentencing court credited pretrial confinement; claim lacks merit

Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing DOC computation claims from sentence ambiguity and PCRA cognizability)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA is sole means for collateral relief when it provides a remedy)
Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392 (Pa. Super. 2014) (explaining mechanisms for challenging credit for time served)
McCray v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (proper vehicle for challenging DOC computations is mandamus/commonwealth court)
Black v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 889 A.2d 672 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (specific DOC time calculations are resolved in Commonwealth Court after administrative remedies)
Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality‑of‑sentence claims must comply with PCRA timeliness to confer jurisdiction)