Davidson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
33 A.3d 682
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Jefferson Davidson (a.k.a. Derrick Roberts) was paroled in 2000 to an INS detainer and was to be supervised by New York.
- In 2001, DEA agents notified the Board of Petitioner's Pennsylvania arrest on federal drug and firearms offenses and he was detained in federal custody.
- Petitioner pled guilty to four federal counts and was sentenced in 2003 to 130 months in federal prison.
- The Board prepared a report in 2003 detailing the arrest, custody, and final disposition, and indicated monitoring until available for state custody.
- In 2009 the U.S. Bureau of Prisons released Petitioner from federal sentences; he was eligible for return to SCI-Graterford, and was returned in January 2010, where a revocation hearing was held in February 2010.
- On March 24, 2010, the Board recommitted Petitioner as a convicted parole violator for 30 months backtime and recalculated the maximum term to July 22, 2013; Petitioner appealed and the Board affirmed in August 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board properly notified detention decision under § 71.3(5). | Petitioner argues improper notice. | Board contends § 71.3(5) does not apply because Petitioner was detained abroad. | No error; § 71.3(5) did not apply. |
| Whether the 30-month backtime was an abuse of discretion given the presumptive range. | Petitioner claims four-episode violation allows only 18–24 months. | Board may treat each federal conviction as a separate parole violation. | Board properly exercised discretion by treating multiple convictions as separate violations. |
| Whether reliance on 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138 lacked valid enactment. | Section 6138 lacks an enacting clause. | Enacting language is properly placed in the Code; valid enactment exists. | Section 6138 properly enacted; no defect. |
| Whether applying § 6138 to deny credit contravenes separation of powers. | Executive-board action improperly extends the sentence by credit denial. | Separation of powers duly allows this; denial of credit is permissible. | No separation of powers violation; Young governs allowing the Board's action. |
| Whether the revocation hearing was untimely and due process was violated. | Hearing occurred ten years after conviction, violating due process. | Hearing timely under 37 Pa.Code § 71.4 due to return from federal custody. | Hearing timely under § 71.4(1)(i); no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 509 Pa. 256 (1985) (treats each violation separately for backtime purposes)
- Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 487 Pa. 428 (1979) (upholds Board credit-denial of parolees; separation of powers)
- Ohodnicki v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole, 418 Pa. 316 (1965) (parole credit considerations and legislative extension of maximum term)
- Crenshaw v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 131 Pa.Cmwlth. 134 (1990) (timeliness of revocation hearings)
- Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 751 A.2d 703 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (constitutional considerations in parole revocation procedures)
- Harris v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 393 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (procedural due process in revocation hearings)