K. Whitaker v. DOC
347 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 1, 2017Background
- Petitioner Kevin Whitaker was arrested March 29, 2014, and remained in custody through November 12, 2015.
- In June 2015 Whitaker was produced on a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, received a federal sentence on June 22, 2015, and returned to the Philadelphia Prison System awaiting state sentencing.
- On November 12, 2015, Judge Coleman sentenced Whitaker in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and (according to Whitaker) ordered that all Philadelphia Prison System time be credited to his state sentence.
- The Department of Corrections’ computation did not credit Whitaker for custody from June 22, 2015 to November 12, 2015, treating that period as credited to his federal sentence.
- Whitaker filed an amended petition for review seeking mandamus relief to compel the Department to award the contested credit; the Department filed preliminary objections (demurrer), arguing mandamus was improper because it lacked authority to alter sentences and that the federal sentence consumed the custody period.
- The Commonwealth Court considered whether Whitaker’s pleadings, accepted as true for demurrer purposes, stated a clear legal right to mandamus relief requiring the Department to credit the disputed period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended petition states a clear legal right to mandamus compelling the DOC to credit June 22–Nov 12, 2015 to Whitaker’s state sentence | Whitaker: Philadelphia court retained primary jurisdiction; Judge Coleman ordered all Philadelphia custody credited to state sentence, including June–Nov 2015 | DOC: It is an executive agency without power to change sentencing; time after federal sentence imposition is attributable to federal sentence and cannot be doubly credited | Overruled demurrer — accepting Whitaker’s well-pled facts, he may have a clear right to mandamus; DOC must answer the petition |
| Whether a federal sentence imposed June 22, 2015 necessarily began running that day such that DOC correctly refused credit | Whitaker: He remained in state custody at Philadelphia Prison System awaiting state sentencing; federal sentence did not necessarily commence there | DOC: Federal sentence was imposed, so pre-sentence time could not be credited to state sentence; Section 9760(1) bars credit to an unrelated active sentence | Court: On demurrer, must accept Whitaker’s allegation that he remained under state jurisdiction; federal sentence commencement is a fact question not resolved on demurrer |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 941 A.2d 70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (standards for mandamus to compel DOC to compute sentence credit; demurrer standards)
- Newsuan v. Department of Corrections, 853 A.2d 409 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (primary jurisdiction doctrine; federal writ does not necessarily start federal sentence)
- Morgan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 814 A.2d 300 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (habeas corpus ad prosequendum borrows prisoner; receiving sovereign doesn’t supersede sending sovereign’s primary jurisdiction)
- Chambers v. Holland, 920 F. Supp. 618 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (discussing jurisdictional priority between sovereigns) (aff’d, 100 F.3d 946)
- Johnston v. Lehman, 609 A.2d 880 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (demurrer cannot supply missing facts)
- Philmar Mid–Atlantic, Inc. v. York Street Assocs. II, 566 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super. 1989) (courts may consider exhibits attached to pleadings when ruling on demurrer)