Garrett v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
1:13-cv-00684
M.D. Penn.May 14, 2014Background
- Garrett, an inmate, filed a pro se §2254 petition challenging the Board of Probation and Parole's decision on his robbery sentence after a parole violation.
- He alleges due process violations regarding credit for time in community corrections centers and inpatient programs.
- He argues the forgery sentence, imposed to run concurrently, should not have extended his robbery max date, creating a potential misalignment of sentences.
- He contends he was denied credit for time held on the Board’s detainer and that his new max date illegally exceeds the remaining term.
- He asserts procedural due process violations when the Board changed his original max sentence date.
- He claims ineffective assistance of counsel at the hearing to determine credit for time spent in community corrections centers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit for time in community corrections centers | Garrett claims Cox credit is owed for time in centers | Board concluded time credits either not applicable or properly calculated | Credit denied/insufficient merit under Cox |
| Effect of forgery sentence on max date | Forgery sentence ran concurrently; should not extend robbery max | Board's calculation compliant with 61 Pa. C.S.A. § 6138(a)(5); no constitutional violation | |
| Credit for time on detainer | Garrett argues lack of credit for time solely on board’s detainer | Board granted credit for that time | Credit properly applied and reconciled |
| Procedural due process in changing max date | Changing max date violated due process | Change consistent with statutory framework and parole statute | No due process violation found |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at credit hearing | Counsel failed to timely file petition for review | Right to counsel in parole hearings is case-by-case; no prejudice shown | No 1st-prong prejudice; no constitutional error |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 507 Pa. 614, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985) (credit for time at community corrections centers when equivalent to incarceration)
- McMillian v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 824 A.2d 350 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003) (case involved credit for community corrections; distinguish prerelease context)
- Commonwealth v. Dorian, 503 Pa. 116, 468 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 1983) (statutory timing and service of terms for parole violations)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S. Ct. 1756 (U.S. 1973) (parolee due process right to counsel on a case-by-case basis)
- McCray v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 582 Pa. 440, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (discussion of credit and parole issues (distinct context))