M.A. Buczynski, II v. PA BPP
621 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Buczynski was serving an original New York/transfer sentence with a maximum date of October 29, 2016, after convictions in 2008 and 2010.
- Paroled on March 19, 2014; arrested May 29, 2015 (Erie County retail theft) and did not post bail. Parole Board lodged a detainer July 14, 2015.
- Convicted March 7, 2016 in Erie County and sentenced to 6 to 23 months plus 15 days; transferred to serve county sentence May 20, 2016.
- Parole Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator, awarded credit for time at liberty while on parole, and recalculated his state maximum date as May 17, 2018.
- Buczynski challenged the Board’s failure to apply 74 days (Mar 7–May 20, 2016) of post-sentence confinement to his original state sentence, arguing those days weren’t credited to his county sentence and thus should reduce his state term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time spent in custody after arrest but before/post sentencing must be credited to the original state sentence when a Parole Board detainer was lodged | Buczynski: 74 days not credited to county sentence should be credited to original state sentence | Parole Board: Detainer was not sole reason for incarceration; time properly credited to new sentence; sentencing court, not Board, decides allocation | Court: Gaito rule controls; since bail was not posted, detention credited to new sentence; remedy for any inadequately credited county time is the sentencing court, not the Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaito v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (establishes rule that detainer-time is credited to original term only when detention is solely due to the detainer and parolee could have posted bail)
- Rodriques v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 403 A.2d 184 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (predecessor principle quoted in Gaito)
- Martin v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 840 A.3d 299 (Pa. 2003) (exception: when pre-sentence confinement exceeds new sentence, excess must be credited to original sentence)
- McCray v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (allocation of credit on a new sentence is for the sentencing court; executive agencies cannot alter sentence legality)
- Bowman v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 930 A.2d 599 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (period between arrest and sentencing when bail not posted must be applied to new sentence)
- Koehler v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 935 A.2d 44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (remedy for insufficient credit lies with trial court/direct appeal, not Board)