F.A. Little v. PA BPP
2707 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Frank A. Little was sentenced in 1994 to 10–20 years for third-degree murder (original max date Feb. 18, 2014).
- Re-paroled in Nov. 2010; arrested and convicted in Delaware (criminal trespass and related offenses) and returned to PA custody.
- In 2011 the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole revoked parole and recommitted Little as a convicted parole violator, recalculating his maximum sentence date to July 2, 2017, and denying credit for time at liberty on parole.
- Little filed administrative appeals in later years; his 2015 administrative petition argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to detain him past the original 2014 max date and challenged denial of credit, but the Board dismissed the 2015 appeal as untimely because it sought to challenge the 2011 order.
- Little sought judicial review in this Court; appointed counsel filed a petition to withdraw with an Anders brief asserting the appeal is meritless.
- The Commonwealth Court conducted the required independent review, concluded Little’s claims lacked merit, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed the Board’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal to Board | Little implied 2015 petition was timely because he referenced an October 2015 Board decision | Board: 2015 decision reiterated the 2011 recalculation; appeal to challenge 2011 order is untimely under 30-day rule | Appeal was untimely; no grounds for nunc pro tunc relief; claim lacks merit |
| Entitlement to credit for time at liberty on parole | Little argued he was entitled to credit for parole time (June 2010–Aug 2011) because his new conviction was criminal trespass (not a crime of violence or SORNA registration offense) | Board: Under 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2) (pre-2012), convicted parole violators receive no credit for time at liberty on parole; Board may extend max date accordingly | Denial of credit was lawful under then-controlling statute; claim lacks merit |
| Requirement to state reasons for denying credit | Little asserted the Board failed to provide a reason and that denial should be reviewable under Article V, §9 | Board noted conviction and that he was not amenable to supervision; and statute did not require further explanation | No legal basis to require more explanation; claim lacks merit and was waived if not raised earlier |
| Counsel’s petition to withdraw (Anders/no-merit) | N/A (procedural) | Counsel provided Anders brief/no‑merit letter, delivered required notices to Little | Court found technical requirements satisfied and permitted withdrawal after independent review |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel’s petition to withdraw in appeals)
- Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 977 A.2d 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (no‑merit letter suffices for counsel withdrawal in parole appeals)
- Jefferson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 705 A.2d 513 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (Anders/no‑merit submissions must show substantial reasons why claims are meritless)
- Pometti v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 705 A.2d 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (Board lacks jurisdiction over untimely administrative appeals)
- Coldren v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 795 A.2d 457 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (pro se prisoner’s appeal deemed filed when deposited with prison officials)
- Richards v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 20 A.3d 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (convicted parole violators generally not entitled to credit for time at liberty on parole)
- Young v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) (Board’s denial of credit for parole time is not an encroachment on judicial sentencing power)
- Kaminski v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 657 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (requirements for nunc pro tunc relief and diligence requirement)
- Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 81 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (time limit for administrative appeals cannot be extended absent fraud or administrative breakdown)
- McCaskill v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 631 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (issues not raised before the Board are waived)
- Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 77 A.3d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (scope of appellate review of Board actions)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)