Hoyt v. Pa. Department of Corrections
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 442
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Hoyt was arrested Aug 6, 2008, and sentenced Mar 23, 2010; DOC pre-released him to ADAPT on Sept 7, 2010.
- He spent 61 days at ADAPT, then was at a Community Correctional Center (CCC) from Nov 8, 2010 to Aug 16, 2011.
- On Aug 15, 2011, Hoyt violated the SIP/pre-release conditions (escape charge later dropped) and was returned to DOC custody.
- On Oct 6, 2011, Hoyt was re-sentenced to 3–8 years for violating SIP; the sentencing order was silent about credit for time served.
- Hoyt petitioned for a writ of mandamus seeking credit for Sept 7, 2010–Aug 15, 2011; DOC filed preliminary objections (demurrer), contending it must follow the sentencing court’s order.
- The court dismissed Hoyt’s mandamus petition because an adequate remedy existed in the sentencing court/direct appeal process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC must award credit for time served when the sentencing order is silent | Hoyt: silence implies DOC may/should credit time served (requests 342 days) | DOC: must follow sentencing court; no credit ordered so DOC cannot award it | Court: DOC cannot grant credit because sentencing order did not award it; remedy is in trial court/appeal |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate relief | Hoyt: seeks writ to compel ministerial act of crediting time served | DOC: mandamus inappropriate because petitioner has adequate remedy in sentencing court | Court: mandamus denied — petitioner has adequate remedy, so extraordinary relief not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Oakman v. Department of Corrections, 903 A.2d 106 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (DOC must follow sentencing court's order)
- McCray v. Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (remedy for lack of credit is in trial court and direct appeal)
- Taglienti v. Department of Corrections, 806 A.2d 988 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (writ of mandamus is extraordinary relief)
- Detar v. Beard, 898 A.2d 26 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (elements required for mandamus)
- Barndt v. Department of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (standard for ruling on preliminary objections in nature of demurrer)