Evans v. SECRETARY PENN. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
645 F.3d 650
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Evans was convicted of multiple counts including rape, incest, and terroristic threats and sentenced in two Pennsylvania counties with credits for time served.
- An administrative Commitment Sheet incorrectly credited Evans with presentence time already credited against another sentence, creating an improper start date for his Lehigh County sentence.
- The Department of Corrections later identified the improper credit and, in 1994-1995, notified the Lehigh Court to correct it, but Evans did not see the DOC’s communications.
- In 2005 the DOC corrected Evans’s release date by deducting the duplicate credit, moving his release from 2006 to 2011, prompting Evans to seek relief in state court and then federal habeas corpus.
- The District Court granted habeas relief in 2009, but the Third Circuit reversed, holding Evans had no constitutionally protected liberty interest in a miscalculated release date and no due process violation.
- The court remanded with instructions to deny Evans’s petition, noting that the practical effect of the denial was uncertain since Evans’s corrected release date had already passed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans had a state-created liberty interest in release on the miscalculated date | Evans asserts a liberty interest in early release | The state did not create a liberty interest in release on a specific date | No state-created liberty interest; only an independent due process liberty interest applies. |
| Whether the correction of the Commitment Sheet implicated due process sufficiently to require process | Due process required notice/hearing before altering confinement duration | Correction did not alter confinement conditions; only time calculation changed | No procedural due process violation; no protected liberty interest in the miscalculated date. |
| Whether the claim is procedurally defaulted under state law | PCRA/timing exceptions render the claim not defaulted | State rules bar the claim as untimely | Not procedurally defaulted; exhaustion and after-discovered facts arguments proceed. |
| Whether the correction shocks the conscience under substantive due process | Correction of the time credit violated substantive due process | Correction arose from administrative error without vindictiveness | The conduct did not shock the conscience; not a substantive due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14 (1981) (no protected liberty interest in early release under state law; due process not triggered)
- Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2007) (mistaken release does not automatically bar re-incarceration or credit if time remains on sentence)
- Renchenski v. Williams, 622 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2010) (independent due process liberty interest requires severe change in confinement or notice/hearing)
- United States v. Guevremont, 829 F.2d 423 (3d Cir. 1987) (correction to comply with sentence allowed; no vindictiveness needed for lawful correction)
- Baker v. Barbo, 177 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 1999) (temporal limit for correcting sentence; correcting administrative error allowed when timely)