Com. v. Slate, T.
Com. v. Slate, T. No. 836 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 1, 2017Background
- Tyler Slate was found guilty of indirect criminal contempt for violating a PFA and was sentenced on 11/18/2015 to six months’ probation with standard supervision conditions.
- In March–April 2016 Slate was charged with harassment and later terroristic threats; the Probation Department lodged a detainer and detained him pending revocation.
- A Gagnon I pre-revocation hearing (5/13/2016) found probable cause and a Gagnon II final revocation hearing was scheduled for 5/31/2016; Slate filed habeas petitions arguing his probation expired on 5/18/2016 and continued detention was unlawful.
- The trial court denied habeas relief (orders 5/18 and 5/20/2016); Slate appealed. The Gagnon II hearing was continued at defense request and ultimately never held; Slate was released circa 8/1/2016 after the detainer was lifted.
- Slate later pled guilty to a reduced summary harassment offense, received no further punishment, and no revocation sentence was entered on the record. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court unlawfully modified Slate’s probation beyond 30 days under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 by detaining him after 5/18/2016 | Slate: continued detention effectively modified/extended his sentence in violation of § 5505 | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: revocation proceedings (not § 5505 modification) were triggered by new offenses; § 5505 inapplicable | Court: § 5505 inapplicable; claim lacks merit and not apt for repetition review |
| Whether failure to hold a Gagnon II final revocation hearing resulted in illegal detention/excessive sentence or required time-credit remedy | Slate: absence of Gagnon II meant detention exceeded lawful maximum and he is entitled to time credit or other remedy | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: revocation could have lawfully resulted in up to six months’ confinement; Slate did not serve six months, later received no further penalty, and time-credit remedy would create an impermissible "penal checking account" | Court: appeal moot because post-appeal developments (release and no further punishment) leave no effective remedy; substantive claims fail or are foreclosed by precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probationer entitled to pre-revocation and final revocation hearings)
- In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (mootness doctrine; case-or-controversy must persist)
- Forrester v. Hanson, 901 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate court may raise jurisdictional mootness sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (section 9760 credits time in custody; section 9771 governs revocation sentencing considerations)
- Martin v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (no constitutional right to pre-sentence confinement credit; rejects creation of "penal checking accounts")