J.L. Durham v. PA BPP, 1338 C.D. 2016

Background

Juban L. Durham was a parolee with backtime owed from an earlier recommitment; he sought credit toward that backtime for time spent in community corrections facilities (Gaudenzia‑Sienna House (CCF), Harrisburg CCC) and other programs.
Board held evidentiary hearings; it awarded credit for one inpatient program period (Wernersville Penn Cap) but denied credit for time at Gaudenzia‑Sienna House and Harrisburg CCC and for Capitol Pavilion; Durham administratively appealed only the denials for Gaudenzia‑Sienna House and Harrisburg CCC.
Durham petitioned this Court for review after the Board upheld the denials; the Cumberland County Public Defender was appointed and counsel filed a second Turner/Anders no‑merit letter and application to withdraw.
The Court first ensured counsel satisfied procedural requirements for withdrawal (notice, service of no‑merit letter, advising client of rights) and found they were met.
On the merits, after independent review, the Court found the Board’s factual findings — based largely on Durham’s testimony and facility directors’ testimony about lack of physical restraints, absence of fencing, and ability to leave on passes — were supported by the record.
The Court affirmed the Board’s denial of credit for the Gaudenzia‑Sienna House and Harrisburg CCC periods and granted counsel leave to withdraw; other issues Durham raised on appeal were deemed waived for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether time spent in CCF/CCC (Gaudenzia‑Sienna House; Harrisburg CCC) is "equivalent of incarceration" so as to merit backtime credit	Durham argued the facility restrictions equaled incarceration and thus merited credit	Board argued Durham failed to meet burden to show restrictions equaled incarceration; facilities lacked locking/fencing and residents could leave on passes	Denied — Court upheld Board: record showed no locks/fencing, staff could not physically restrain, residents could exit; Durham failed to meet burden
Whether counsel complied with withdrawal procedural requirements for a Turner/Anders submission	Durham (implicitly) challenged withdrawal without proper notice and sufficient analysis	Counsel served no‑merit letter and certificate of service; revised letter addressed issues; client advised of rights	Granted — Court found technical requirements satisfied and permitted counsel to withdraw
Whether unraised issues (Capitol Pavilion, Keystone Correctional, PV max date extension) may be considered on appeal	Durham argued entitlement to credit for additional periods and challenged PV max date extension	Board argued those issues were not administratively exhausted and thus waived	Waived — Court held issues not raised before Board cannot be considered on appeal
Whether Board’s factual findings at evidentiary hearing were supported by substantial evidence	Durham argued Board misapplied law/fact in denying credit	Board relied on hearing examiner findings based on testimony (including Durham’s) supporting lack of incarceration equivalence	Affirmed — Court held findings supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law

Key Cases Cited

Cox v. Board of Probation and Parole, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985) (parolee who agreed to inpatient treatment presumed at liberty; parolee bears burden to show restrictions equivalent to incarceration)
Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 120 A.3d 1116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (en banc) (parolees face a heavy burden to prove CCC/CCF restrictions equal incarceration; focus on locking and ability to leave)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel seeking to withdraw when appellate claims are frivolous)