214 A.3d 308
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- Foxe was arrested for a First Offense (firearms) in April 2008, posted bail April 4, 2008, and remained free on bail until arrested for a separate Second Offense (attempted murder and firearms) on November 25, 2009 (no bail posted).
- Foxe was convicted and sentenced on the First Offense on August 12, 2010 (Original Sentence); he entered a negotiated guilty plea on the Second Offense and was sentenced July 14, 2011 (New Sentence), with the court stating the New Sentence was to run concurrently with the Original Sentence and that Foxe would receive credit for time served.
- DOC calculated Foxe’s New Sentence controlling dates from July 14, 2019 to July 14, 2029 and did not give credit for 595 days Foxe claims he served between November 26, 2009 and July 14, 2011.
- Foxe filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus in Commonwealth Court asking DOC to recalculate his minimum and maximum dates to include credit for the pre-sentence custody period for the Second Offense (at least 216 days between Nov. 25, 2009 and June 29, 2010, and possibly 44 more days to Aug. 12, 2010).
- DOC filed preliminary objections (demurrer), arguing Foxe failed to state a mandamus claim because time was already credited to another sentence and that any challenge belonged before the sentencing court; Foxe opposed.
- The Commonwealth Court treated the pleadings and attached records as true for purposes of the demurrer and found Foxe had pleaded a viable mandamus claim requiring DOC to answer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foxe has a clear legal right to credit on the New Sentence for pre-sentence custody relating to the Second Offense | Foxe says the sentencing court ordered credit and he is entitled to credit for at least 216 days (Nov. 25, 2009–June 29, 2010) and possibly additional days | DOC says the time was credited to another sentence and Foxe is not entitled to credit on the New Sentence or that the sentencing court could not backdate the New Sentence | Court held Foxe has a clear right to at least some credit (the 216 days) and possibly more; factual uncertainty about 44 days prevents dismissal |
| Whether DOC has a ministerial duty to apply the sentencing court’s credit order when computing controlling dates | Foxe contends DOC must implement the July 14, 2011 sentencing order and recalculate dates accordingly | DOC contends its computation (showing concurrent sentences) was correct and challenges belong in sentencing court | Court held DOC has a duty to carry out the sentencing order and failed to calculate Foxe’s New Sentence per that order |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel DOC to recalculate Foxe’s sentence credit | Foxe argues mandamus is proper to correct DOC’s computation when the sentencing order clearly grants credit | DOC argues sentencing-court challenges should be litigated before the sentencing court rather than by mandamus | Court held mandamus is an appropriate remedy here because the sentencing order clearly grants credit and DOC’s computation does not comply |
| Whether Foxe seeks impermissible double credit | DOC implies Foxe requests double credit for the same days | Foxe asserts he is not seeking double credit; he seeks credit for days spent solely on the Second Offense | Court concluded Foxe is not requesting double credit; double-credit rule remains but here Foxe is entitled to credit for time spent solely for the Second Offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (standard for ruling on preliminary objections)
- DeGeorge v. Young, 892 A.2d 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (mandamus elements and use to compel ministerial acts)
- Merigris, 681 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 1996) (principle that credit is for time spent in custody for the offense sentenced)
- Miller, 655 A.2d 1000 (Pa. Super. 1995) (posting bail ends custody for that charge; credit rules explained)
- Vidal, 198 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2018) (application of §9760(4) for arrests followed by later prosecution)
- Barndt v. Dep’t of Corr., 902 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (double credit is not authorized)
- Taglienti v. Dep’t of Corr., 806 A.2d 988 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (sentencing court cannot order credit for a period when defendant was serving another unrelated sentence)
- Allen v. Dep’t of Corr., 103 A.3d 365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (mandamus appropriate to correct DOC computation when sentencing order clearly grants credit)
- Doxsey v. Commonwealth, 674 A.2d 1173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (sentencing judges cannot retroactively commence a sentence to overlap unrelated custody)
- Wassell v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 658 A.2d 466 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (no statutory authority for retroactive commencement or credit for unrelated prior custody)
- McCray v. Dep’t of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (DOC must faithfully implement court-imposed sentences)