Commonwealth v. Stafford
29 A.3d 800
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Appellee pleaded guilty to simple assault and received two years probation; violated probation and was resentenced to 3–23 months incarceration, with 33 days credit and home electronic monitoring for the remainder of the minimum sentence.
- Appellee absconded from home monitoring on June 30, 2008; bench warrant issued July 2, 2008; he was not arrested until December 24, 2009.
- Upon arrest for alleged parole violations in March 2010, a Gagnon I hearing occurred in January 2010; Appellee had not been paroled at the time he absconded.
- The county probation/parole department then completed the minimum sentence and released Appellee on January 28, 2010, without a parole request filed of record; the trial court rescinded the warrant based on completion of the minimum sentence.
- Appellee argued that his original maximum sentence expired February 27, 2010 and he should be released; the trial court granted habeas corpus relief on May 24, 2010; the Commonwealth appealed.
- The issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly credited time while Appellee was an escapee and not under supervision, affecting the maximum sentence date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether credit for time served runs during escape | Stafford—credit for eighteen months while escaped; maximum date should reflect ongoing service | Commonwealth—absconder time not creditable; time ran only under supervision | No; credit not allowed for escape time; maximum date must be recalculated and a Gagnon II needed |
| Whether the maximum sentence could be recomputed without a Gagnon II | Stafford’s maximum date should reflect actual service; recomputation permissible | Parole department cannot unilaterally extend sentence; recomputation requires proper revocation process | Max date could be recalculated, but requires proper revocation process (Gagnon II) |
| Role of probation vs. parole status in credit and revocation | Presents as parole violation; argues for recomputation within parole framework | Appellee was not on probation and not paroled during escape; treated as escapee under Wegley | Appellee was an escapee, not a parolee during the escape; recomputation necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wegley, 829 A.2d 1148 (Pa. 2003) (electronic monitoring qualifies as 'official detention' for escape)
- Young v. Pa. Board of Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) (time not served during absence without supervision; cannot credit street time)
- Ortega v. Commonwealth, 995 A.2d 879 (Pa.Super.2010) (absconder/ delinquent parolee concepts discussed; court rejected continuing sentence during absence)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (probation vs. parole revocation distinctions and sentencing options)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process in parole revocation proceedings)