L. Ruffin v. PA BPP
L. Ruffin v. PA BPP - 2038 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Ruffin was paroled in 2011 with an original maximum date of June 10, 2017 and was required to submit to random drug testing.
- He incurred a technical violation in June–August 2013 (positive marijuana test) and was confined to a violation center; later, arrested Feb 26, 2014 on new drug charges and detained on the Board’s warrant.
- He pleaded guilty April 8, 2015 in Philadelphia court, was sentenced June 12, 2015 (9–18 months with credit for time served), and the Board held a revocation hearing Sept 22, 2015.
- On Oct 21, 2015 (mailed Nov 9, 2015) the Board revoked parole, recommitted Ruffin as a convicted parole violator, imposed 24 months backtime, and recalculated his parole-violation maximum date to Oct 21, 2019, awarding credit for certain detention intervals but denying “street time.”
- Ruffin did not timely appeal the Nov 9, 2015 decision; he submitted an administrative review received May 13, 2016 challenging the recalculation as a separation-of-powers and due-process violation, and the Board dismissed it as untimely on Dec 5, 2016.
- Ruffin petitioned this Court; appointed counsel filed a Turner no-merit letter and sought to withdraw; the Court independently reviewed and affirmed the Board and granted withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of administrative appeal | Ruffin contends his Request for Administrative Review should be considered (he mailed in May 2016); challenges recalculation | Board argues the controlling decision was mailed Nov 9, 2015; appeal due within 30 days and was untimely | Court: Appeal was untimely as to the Nov 9, 2015 decision; dismissal proper |
| Authority to recalculate maximum date / separation of powers | Ruffin argues recalculation extends judicial sentence and usurps judicial power; violates due process | Board contends statutory authority to recommit and to refuse credit for street time; recalculation authorized by statute and precedent | Court: Board acted within statutory authority; no separation-of-powers or due-process violation |
| Credit for confinement periods | Ruffin impliedly contests credits applied/denied | Board awarded credit for 61 days (technical violator confinement) and 344 days (held on Board detainer), denied street-time credit due to misconduct | Court: Credits and denial of street time were appropriate and supported by law/facts |
| Adequacy of appointed counsel’s withdrawal paperwork | Counsel asserted no non-frivolous issues and provided a Turner no‑merit letter; Ruffin could file pro se brief | Board had no position on counsel’s procedural compliance | Court: Counsel satisfied Turner/Craig requirements; withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) (Board may recommit beyond judicial maximum and denial of street-time credit is not judicial usurpation)
- Gaito v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (Board’s authority to adjust parole credit upheld)
- Cox v. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985) (credit for time confined as technical parole violator where liberty restrictions equate to incarceration)
- Smith v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 81 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (30‑day jurisdictional appeal period; mailbox rule application)
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017) (Board must articulate basis when granting or denying credit for street time)