Commonwealth v. Ellsworth
97 A.3d 1255
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant James Joseph Ellsworth pled guilty to burglary (Docket 569-2010) and was sentenced on September 22, 2010 to 2½ to 60 months, with 312 days credit awarded at sentencing.
- The DOC later credited him with "backtime" for March 12, 2010 to October 18, 2010 for a parole revocation at a different docket (2634-2006).
- The DOC asked the sentencing court whether duplicate credit should be allowed; the court issued an order (Feb 27, 2014) denying duplicate credit, stating double credit is not authorized under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760.
- Appellant appealed pro se, arguing the court lacked authority under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 to modify its order after 30 days and that the change altered his sentence.
- The trial court and Commonwealth maintained a defendant cannot receive credit twice for the same time in custody, and that the court could correct the duplicative credit as a patent and obvious mistake.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant can receive duplicate credit for the same time in custody on two different dockets | Ellsworth argued he was entitled to the credit and the court lacked authority under § 5505 to modify its order after 30 days | A defendant may not receive credit against more than one sentence for the same time; duplicate credit is prohibited by statute and precedent | Court held duplicate credit is prohibited; Appellant not entitled to double credit |
| Whether the sentencing court could correct its earlier credit award after 30 days under § 5505 | Ellsworth claimed the court improperly rescinded/modified his sentence beyond § 5505's 30-day period | Court argued patent and obvious mistakes may be corrected beyond 30 days; duplicative credit is such a mistake | Court held duplicative credit was a patent and obvious mistake amenable to correction after 30 days |
| Whether the DOC could unilaterally alter credit computations | N/A (Appellant relied on court action, not DOC authority) | The DOC lacks authority to change sentences or add/remove credit; that power rests with the sentencing court | Court reaffirmed DOC cannot change sentencing credits and sought court guidance before awarding backtime credit |
| Whether Appellant suffered harm from the court's correction | Appellant implied harm by losing credit | Court noted Appellant cannot claim a right to credit to which he is not entitled | Court found no actionable harm since duplicate credit is impermissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 509 A.2d 868 (Pa. Super. 1986) (duplicate credit not permitted)
- Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 1996) (no credit against more than one sentence for same time served)
- Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723 (Pa. Super. 1992) (credit only for time spent in custody for a particular offense)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 957 A.2d 746 (Pa. Super. 2008) (DOC cannot alter sentences or credit decisions reserved for the sentencing court)
- Commonwealth v. Borrin, 12 A.3d 466 (Pa. Super. 2011) (patent and obvious mistakes required for post-30-day corrections)
- Jones v. Department of Corrections, 683 A.2d 340 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (clerical/patent errors may be corrected beyond 30 days)