K. Wright-Smith v. PPB
306 C.D. 2024
Pa. Commw. Ct.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Kyrell Wright-Smith was convicted in 2016 for theft, forgery, and conspiracy and sentenced to up to 7 years, with a maximum date of October 21, 2021.
- He was paroled in March 2019 with 954 days remaining, but subsequently arrested on new charges in December 2019, upon which the Parole Board lodged a detainer.
- After several periods of detention—associated with new charges and parole violations—Wright-Smith was convicted and sentenced for new offenses in April 2023 while still under parole supervision.
- The Parole Board revoked his parole, recalculated his maximum date, and awarded confinement time credit for certain periods held under their detainer, but did not credit time at liberty on parole.
- Wright-Smith filed for administrative relief, arguing he was not properly credited for time served due to the Board’s detainer from January 15, 2020, to January 25, 2021; this challenge was denied by the Board, then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit for Detention under Board’s Detainer | Did not receive credit for time served Jan 2020–Jan 2021 on Board's detainer | Wright-Smith received full credit for all relevant periods under Parole Board's detainer | Court found he was properly credited; argument unavailing |
| Credit for Time at Liberty on Parole | Board abused discretion by not awarding credit for time at liberty on parole | Board acted within discretion; plaintiff was convicted of a same/similar crime, had absconded | Argument waived and lacks merit, Board’s discretion affirmed |
| Setting of Maximum Sentence Date | New maximum extends beyond allowable period | Recalculation proper based on remaining sentence after crediting confinement time | Argument waived; recalculation affirmed as proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (pre-sentence detention while under detainer is credited to the new sentence, not parole, if bail not posted)
- Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (pre-sentence detention must be allocated to one sentence or the other, not both—distinguishable here)
- Boyd-Chisholm v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 240 A.3d 1005 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (CPV must serve the remainder of original term first)
- White v. Pennsylvania Parole Board, 276 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Cmwlth 2022) (service of original term precedes new sentence only after revocation)
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017) (Board must articulate its denial of credit for time at liberty on parole)