Hammonds v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
143 A.3d 994
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Hammonds was sentenced in June 2012; original maximum date December 9, 2016, and paroled June 13, 2013.
- Arrested on new criminal charges November 7, 2013; Board lodged a detainer; some criminal charges were withdrawn and refiled December 14, 2013.
- Hammonds was detained on both the Board detainer and the new charges until March 4, 2014, when bail was changed to nonmonetary and thereafter remained confined solely on the Board detainer until sentencing on October 23, 2014.
- Trial court sentenced Hammonds on the new convictions to 36–84 months on October 23, 2014; Board later recommitted him as a convicted parole violator to serve the balance of his original term with no credit for time at liberty.
- The Board credited 270 days toward the original sentence (37 days detained solely on the detainer before refiling and 233 days after nonmonetary bail until sentencing), subtracted those from the 1,275 days owed, and set a recalculated maximum date of July 24, 2017 and reparole eligibility of July 28, 2015.
- Hammonds challenged the recalculation, arguing equitable pre‑sentence credit under Martin and Baasit should allocate more pre‑sentence time to his original sentence; the Board dismissed his administrative appeal and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre‑sentence confinement while detained on both a Board detainer and new state charges must be equitably credited to the original sentence (Martin equitable‑crediting) | Hammonds: Martin/Baasit require equitable allocation of all pre‑sentence confinement so excess custody beyond new sentence is credited to the original sentence; therefore more days should have been applied to his original term | Board: Gaito controls for state‑sentence situations—time spent on both detainer and new state charges is credited to the new sentence unless the inmate was detained solely on the Board detainer; Martin/Baasit exceptions don’t apply here | Court held Gaito governs; Board correctly credited only periods spent solely on the Board detainer and after nonmonetary bail until sentencing; Martin/Baasit not extended to these facts |
| Whether Board properly dismissed a later administrative filing as untimely | Hammonds: his April 2015 filing raised calculation errors and should have been considered | Board: treated earlier March filings as timely appeal and deemed the April submission untimely; dismissal appropriate | Court accepted Board’s treatment of filings and affirmed denial of the untimely administrative request |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (recognized equitable allocation of pre‑sentence confinement when custody exceeds new sentence)
- Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (pre‑sentence time credited to original term only when inmate is confined solely on Board detainer)
- Baasit v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 90 A.3d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (applied Martin principles where federal detainer and statutory framework required applying pre‑sentence credit to the original state term)
- Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (applies Martin equitable allocation in appropriate circumstances)
- Melhorn v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 908 A.2d 266 (Pa. 2006) (discusses pre‑sentence credit principles in parole revocation context)