D. Smoak v. J.J. Talaber, Esq., Secretary PBPP
193 A.3d 1160
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Smoak was sentenced in 2009 on narcotics and firearms offenses; released on parole July 24, 2014, with a maximum date of September 20, 2018.
- On March 17, 2016, he was arrested for furnishing a drug-free urine specimen; convicted May 19, 2016, and sentenced to county probation; he waived his parole revocation hearing the same day.
- On June 23, 2016, the Parole Board recommitted Smoak as a convicted parole violator and denied credit for time spent at liberty on parole (nine months backtime), but the recommitment order did not include a contemporaneous statement of reasons for denying street-time credit.
- Smoak filed an administrative appeal; while that appeal was pending, the Board modified its recommitment order on December 19, 2017 to state the reason: "unresolved drug and alcohol issues," and denied his appeal on January 9, 2018. The Board took ~18 months to respond.
- Smoak petitioned for review in this Court arguing (1) the Board abused its discretion by failing to provide a contemporaneous statement of reasons (relying on Pittman), and (2) the Board’s nearly two-year delay in responding prejudiced his right to appeal.
- The Court affirmed: it found the Board erred by omitting a reason initially, but the post-decision modification supplying a concise reason cured the error; Smoak showed no prejudice from the delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Parole Board must provide a contemporaneous statement of reasons when denying credit for time at liberty on parole | Smoak: Pittman requires a contemporaneous statement; omission was an abuse of discretion | Board: It exercised discretion to deny credit and later provided a reason on administrative review | Court: Initial omission was error, but cured by the Board's December 19, 2017 modification supplying a concise reason ("unresolved drug and alcohol issues") |
| Whether the Board’s ~18-month delay in resolving the administrative appeal violated due process or prejudiced Smoak | Smoak: Delay improperly delayed appellate review and prejudiced his rights | Board: No prejudice; Board ultimately provided the required reason; remedy for delay is mandamus, not reversal | Court: No due-process violation shown; Smoak alleged no prejudice and benefited from the delay because he received the statement of reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017) (Board must articulate basis when granting or denying credit for street time; brief explanation generally sufficient)
- Anderson v. Talaber, 171 A.3d 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (remand required where Board failed to issue contemporaneous reasons for denying street-time credit)
- Slotcavage v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 745 A.2d 89 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (delay in issuing administrative decision does not violate due process absent shown prejudice; mandamus is remedy for delay)
- Commonwealth v. Marchesano, 544 A.2d 1333 (Pa. 1988) (no speedy-process violation where probationer shows no actual prejudice from delay)
- Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1976) (federal precedent that postponement of parole decisions while other sentences are served does not per se violate due process)