K. Mehadi v. K.A. Barkley, Sec. PA BPP
K. Mehadi v. K.A. Barkley, Sec. PA BPP - 239 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- Mehadi was sentenced to an aggregate 3–10 year term, released on parole Sept. 6, 2011, with 2,250 days remaining on the original sentence.
- While on parole he was arrested on multiple new charges beginning Aug. 9, 2013, remained in Berks County Prison without posting bail, and later pled guilty on April 16, 2015 to remaining charges; the court sentenced him to a new 3–10 year term and credited him with 614 days then served on the new sentence (including a stipulation for credit).
- The Board received official verification of the convictions on May 12, 2015, served revocation charges July 21, 2015; Mehadi waived a panel hearing and admitted the convictions to an examiner.
- The Board recommitted Mehadi as a convicted parole violator (CPV), imposed 48 months backtime, recalculated his original sentence maximum from Nov. 3, 2017 to Aug. 31, 2021, and credited 59 days that were served solely on the Board’s detainer (Aug. 10–Oct. 8, 2013) because the Aug. 9 charges were nolle prossed.
- Mehadi administratively appealed, arguing (1) the revocation hearing was untimely, (2) the recommitment term was excessive, and (3) the Board improperly modified his judicially imposed maximum; the Board denied relief and the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of revocation hearing | The 120‑day clock should run from April 16, 2015 (guilty plea); Board untimely. | 120‑day clock runs from Board's receipt of official verification (May 12, 2015); hearing and decisions were within 120 days. | Court: Mehadi waived timeliness claim by waiving a panel hearing; in any event Board timely (hearing 85 days after verification; decision recorded within 120 days). |
| Recommitment term (backtime) excessive | Board imposed excessive recommitment (48 months). | Board followed statutory authority and presumptive ranges; exercise of discretion. | Court: No abuse of discretion shown; Board may set backtime per Parole Code. |
| Credit for time in custody / recalculation of maximum date | Board improperly altered judicial maximum by denying credit for time at liberty on parole. | Under 61 Pa. C.S. §6138 and Young, Board may withhold parole-time credit and recalculate CPV maximum; only credit for detention must be allocated between new sentence and original sentence per Martin/Davidson. | Court: Board lawfully recalculated maximum by denying parole-time credit; credited 59 days spent solely on Board detainer consistent with precedent. |
| Proposed narrower standard for denying credit (absconding only) | Mehadi asks Court to require absconding to deny parole-time credit. | Board and precedent permit denying credit when parolee fails to comply with parole restraints; statute vests discretion with Board. | Court: Declines to adopt new test; Section 6138(a)(2.1) grants Board discretion and Mehadi did not show abuse of that discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) (Board may withdraw credit for time at liberty on parole; recalculation is not judicial sentence augmentation)
- Krantz v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 483 A.2d 1044 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (definition and nature of backtime)
- Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (when offender detained on both Board detainer and new charges, confinement must be credited to either new or original sentence)
- Davidson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 667 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (equitable credit to parolee when new charges are nolle prossed)
- Fisher v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 62 A.3d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (waiver of hearing bars timeliness claim)
- Lawson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 977 A.2d 85 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (Board must show revocation delay was not unreasonable; timeliness measured from receipt of official verification)
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 131 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (Section 6138(a)(2.1) vests discretion in Board; courts cannot supply standards limiting that discretion)