Commonwealth v. Melius
100 A.3d 682
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Melius pled guilty to conspiracy to commit retail theft and received probation for 12 months.
- Probation was revoked in 2012 for drug use, resulting in a 3–23 month incarceration; he served three months.
- In 2012–2013, Melius had parole violations in Indiana County and was resentenced to six months in Cambria County for parole violation.
- While in Cambria County Prison, he sought furlough to attend inpatient drug treatment at Madison House West; the court granted furlough with condition of return.
- Melius failed a drug screen and was expelled from Madison House; he did not return, leading to a bench warrant.
- On August 19, 2013, the trial court resentenced him to 12 months based on treating the furlough as a county intermediate punishment; Melius argued this was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether furlough for rehab was a county intermediate punishment | Melius contends furlough was not a CPI sentence. | Commonwealth argues furlough functioned as CPI and violation revokes CPI. | Furlough was not CPI; revocation of furlough must recommit rather than resume new sentence. |
| Whether furlough violation supports a new sentence or recommitment | Violation should recommit to remaining term, not impose new sentence. | Violation could be treated as probation/CPI revocation with new sentencing options. | Violation required recommitment to serve remaining original sentence, not a new illegal sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (parole revocation cannot impose a new sentence; recommitment to original term)
- Commonwealth v. Philipp, 709 A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) (revocation of probation mirrors revocation of intermediate punishment)
- Commonwealth v. Byrd, 663 A.2d 229 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (revocation proceedings use same sentencing options as initial sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Cappellini, 690 A.2d 1220 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) (legality of sentence; jurisdiction to impose within statutory punishments)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 28 A.3d 898 (Pa. 2011) (statutory interpretation governs meaning when text is clear)