H. Hoover v. PA BPP
609 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Hoover was sentenced in 2007 to 6–15 years for voluntary manslaughter; released on parole in 2013 with original max date Oct. 10, 2022.
- Arrested in 2014 on multiple charges including a home invasion; pled guilty on Oct. 1, 2015 to simple assault and disorderly conduct (other charges nolle prossed).
- Board issued warrant, Petitioner admitted convictions and was recommitted as a convicted parole violator to serve 24 months backtime on Dec. 2, 2015; Board later corrected a typo removing disorderly conduct.
- Board recalculated Hoover’s maximum sentence on Sept. 1, 2016 (affirmed Apr. 28, 2017), setting a new max date of Nov. 24, 2024 by adding remaining unserved days to the date he became available to serve the original sentence.
- Hoover appealed, arguing the Board improperly modified his maximum sentence and denied credit for time at liberty on parole, imposed backtime beyond the presumptive range, and forced him to serve a new county sentence before his original state sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Hoover’s Argument | Board’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board improperly modified judicially-imposed maximum sentence | Board lacks authority to alter maximum; recalculation is cruel/unusual and ex post facto | Prior precedent allows Board recalculation; lawful administrative action | Denied — Court held prior precedent permits Board recalculation (no Eighth/Ex Post Facto violation) |
| Whether Board denied credit for time at liberty on parole without adequate reasons | Board failed to consider/ state reasons under 61 Pa.C.S. §6138(a)(2.1) and Pittman requires explanation | Board conceded it did not provide specific reasons; sought remand to supply them | Granted limited remand — Board must articulate reasons consistent with Pittman |
| Whether 24 months backtime exceeded presumptive range for simple assault | 24 months exceeds 9–15 month presumptive range and is excessive | Board may deviate from presumptive range if it provides written justification (aggravating history) | Denied — Board’s written justification (continued violent convictions) is sufficient |
| Whether new county sentence must be served after original state sentence | Board forced service of remainder of original sentence before county term | Board argues issue was waived administratively and, in any event, statutes control sequencing | Denied — waived; alternatively, statute requires serving county term before state remainder here, so Board did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (Board authority and limits regarding parole recommitment and sentence computation)
- Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) (parole revocation and Board powers precedent)
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017) (Board must articulate reasons when denying credit for time at liberty on parole)
- Monroe v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 555 A.2d 295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (interpretation of Board authority in parole matters)
- Newsome v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 553 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (failure to raise issue administratively results in waiver)