D. Barnes v. PA DOC, D. Barnes v. PA DOC

Petitioner Dayeshon Barnes, formerly committed as a juvenile to Woods Services (JV‑1128‑13), was in custody there from Sept. 18, 2013 until he went AWOL on May 13, 2014 (238 days).
Barnes was later arrested July 11, 2014 on adult firearms charges (docket CP‑23‑CR‑0004793‑14) and remained in custody awaiting sentencing (claimed 860 days).
The juvenile matter was transferred to the Criminal Division and re‑docketed as CP‑23‑CR‑0005753‑16; Barnes pleaded guilty and was sentenced Nov. 17, 2016 on that docket (4–10 years with credit for time served), and also had sentence(s) under 4793‑14 to run concurrent.
Barnes filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking credit for a total of 1,098 days (238 juvenile days + 860 adult pre‑sentence days).
DOC filed a preliminary objection (demurrer) arguing the 238 days at Woods Services are unrelated to the 4793‑14 sentence (so credit would be illegal/double credit) and that DOC already credited the 860 days; DOC sought dismissal.
The Court sustained the PO only as to the 860 days (Barnes conceded he is receiving that credit) and overruled the PO as to the 238 juvenile days to the extent Barnes seeks that credit against the 5753‑16 sentence (the juvenile docket once transferred). DOC was ordered to answer the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barnes is entitled to credit for 238 days spent in a juvenile facility against his adult sentence	238 juvenile days should be credited to the sentence on docket 5753‑16 (the transferred juvenile case)	Credit for those 238 days is unrelated to adult docket 4793‑14 and would amount to unlawful/double credit	Overruled PO as to 238 days when claimed against docket 5753‑16; claim survives demurrer
Whether Barnes may obtain credit for 860 days spent in custody prior to sentencing	Barnes seeks credit for 860 days pre‑sentence custody	DOC asserts those 860 days are already credited and applying again would be double credit	Sustained PO as to 860 days (Barnes admits he already receives that credit)
Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel DOC to compute sentence credit here	Mandamus is proper because Barnes alleges a clear legal right to credit and no adequate remedy	DOC argues claim is legally barred (double/unrelated credit)	Mandamus claim survives at least as to the 238‑day credit against 5753‑16; DOC must answer
Whether a preliminary objection (demurrer) should be sustained at pleading stage	Barnes says facts show entitlement to juvenile credit on transferred docket	DOC says law forbids credit for custody unrelated to the charge being sentenced	Court construes pleadings in favor of plaintiff; demurrer sustained only where law permits no recovery — here, dismissal was only appropriate for the 860‑day claim

Danysh v. Dep’t of Corr., 845 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (standard for pleading on preliminary objections)
Sweatt v. Dep’t of Corr., 769 A.2d 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (preliminary objections sustained only where law permits no recovery)
Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hosp., Inc., 465 A.2d 1231 (Pa. 1983) (doubts on demurrer resolved against sustaining it)
Bronson v. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 421 A.2d 1021 (Pa. 1980) (mandamus elements and extraordinary nature of the writ)
Bright v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 831 A.2d 775 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (mandamus may compel DOC to properly compute sentence credit)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 655 A.2d 1000 (Pa. Super. 1995) (credit available only for custody on the offense sentenced unless statutory exception applies)
Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 1996) (no credit for completely unrelated crimes)
Commonwealth ex rel. Bleecher v. Rundle, 217 A.2d 772 (Pa. Super. 1966) (credit not given for commitment by reason of a separate and distinct offense)
Doxsey v. Commonwealth, 674 A.2d 1173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (judicial notice of court records at preliminary objection stage)
Styers v. Bedford Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 900 A.2d 895 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of facts incorporated by reference to prior court action)