198 A.3d 1097
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Appellant Dymire Vidal, age 17 at arrest, was detained at South Mountain Juvenile Detention Center after a probation revocation and new juvenile charges; an April 9, 2017 assault on staff occurred while he was detained.
- A delinquency petition charged him with aggravated assault, simple assault, and harassment; he remained at South Mountain from April 4 to June 23, 2017.
- On June 23, 2017 Vidal admitted to the probation violation, and the assault-related juvenile charges were waived to adult court; he was transferred to Dauphin County Prison the same day.
- On June 29, 2017 Vidal entered a negotiated guilty plea in adult court to aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(2)) and was sentenced June 30, 2017 to 1.5–3 years.
- The trial court awarded credit for time in county prison (June 23–29) and 21 days of credit at South Mountain, but Vidal sought additional credit under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1) for time spent in juvenile detention prior to transfer to adult court.
- The trial court denied further credit; Vidal appealed, arguing entitlement as a matter of law to credit for juvenile detention time "as a result of the conduct on which such a charge is based."
Issues
| Issue | Vidal's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vidal was entitled under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1) to sentencing credit for time in juvenile detention before transfer to adult court | Time at South Mountain (Apr 9–Jun 23) was "as a result of the conduct on which such a charge is based," so he must get credit under § 9760(1) | Time at South Mountain was attributable to the prior probation violation and juvenile disposition, not the adult criminal charge, so no § 9760 credit | Court held Vidal failed to show the time was "as a result" of the criminal charge/conduct for which he was sentenced; no additional § 9760(1) credit warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723 (Pa. Super. 1992) (time already credited to one sentence cannot be double-counted for another sentence; prevents "windfall" credit)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (challenge to denial of pre-sentence credit implicates legality of sentence; reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Pilchesky, 151 A.3d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2016) (interpreting statutory "or" in § 9760; disjunctive reading unless absurd result)