Com. v. Taylor, J.
423 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Appellant John Thomas Taylor was incarcerated on August 18, 2015, and had a probation detainer at docket CP-25-CR-0001351-2014 as well as new charges at CP-25-CR-0002564-2015.
- He pled guilty on January 4, 2016 to unlawful restraint and recklessly endangering another person (REAP) in the instant docket.
- On March 2, 2016 the court sentenced him to 6 to 23½ months for unlawful restraint and 2 years’ probation for REAP.
- The trial court credited Appellant’s confinement from Aug 18, 2015–Nov 28, 2015 to the earlier detainer sentence (docket 1351-2014), and Nov 29, 2015–Jan 4, 2016 to the instant sentence.
- Appellant appealed, arguing the sentence was illegal because the court altered conditions without a probation revocation hearing and denied him credit on the current sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant’s sentence is illegal for failure to credit time served / for changing sentence conditions without a revocation hearing | Trial court changed or increased sentence conditions and denied credit for time served, without a probation revocation hearing | Time in custody was credited in full: earlier period credited to the detainer sentence (which maxed out), remaining period credited to the new sentence; duplicative credit is not permitted | Court affirmed: all credit due was properly applied and Appellant is not entitled to duplicate credit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 885 A.2d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2005) (failure to award credit for time served implicates legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723 (Pa. Super. 1992) (credit for time served before sentencing involves legality; duplicative credit not allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for legality of sentence; sentences without statutory authorization are illegal)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 957 A.2d 746 (Pa. Super. 2008) (when incarcerated on both a parole detainer and new charges, time must be credited to one sentence or the other)
- Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (same principle on credit allocation between detainer and new charges)
- Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 1996) (defendant cannot receive double credit for time served)
- Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2014) (duplicative imposition of credit is a patent sentencing error)