273 A.3d 1255
Pa. Commw. Ct.2022Background
- El‑Amin pled guilty in 2015 to two counts of access device fraud and was sentenced to 2–4 years; he was released on parole August 7, 2017 and placed in community correction centers/facilities (York CCC, Keystone CCF, Harrisburg CCC).
- During parole he was arrested on multiple new charges in July 2018; the Board issued a warrant to commit and detain him and later recommitted him as a convicted parole violator after he pleaded guilty on the Dauphin County (New Charges).
- El‑Amin sought sentence credit for time spent in the York CCC (Aug 7–Nov 7, 2017), Keystone CCF (Dec 20, 2017–Jan 12, 2018), and Harrisburg CCC (Jan 12–Jul 17, 2018), arguing those placements were equivalent to incarceration.
- The Board held an evidentiary Cox hearing (Mar 30, 2021) and found the three facilities did not impose the equivalent of incarceration (residents could leave with permission; staff could not physically prevent exit; doors locked only to keep unauthorized persons out).
- The Board denied credit (decisions recorded Aug 8, 2019; Mar 10, 2020; Apr 14, 2021), affirmed June 28, 2021; El‑Amin appealed asserting Torres should be revisited and that a 2021 statutory amendment (61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2.3)) changes the law and cannot be applied retroactively.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding longstanding precedent governs and the legislative amendment codified—not changed—that precedent; El‑Amin was at liberty on parole during the CCC/CCF placements and was not entitled to credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time in York CCC, Keystone CCF, and Harrisburg CCC was the "equivalent of incarceration" so as to require credit on recommitment | El‑Amin: the restrictions were equivalent to incarceration; CCC/CCF residency should count as confinement | Board: facilities did not impose incarceration‑level restrictions; residents could leave with permission and staff could not prevent exit | Court: Facilities did not impose equivalent confinement; El‑Amin was at liberty on parole and not entitled to credit |
| Whether Torres/Medina should be revisited and the 2021 statutory codification alters preexisting law or is punitive/retroactive | El‑Amin: Medina/Cox should be reexamined given modern practices; the 2021 statute reflects a change that is punitive and cannot be applied retroactively | Board: Medina and Torres remain controlling; 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2.3) codifies existing case law rather than changing it | Court: Declined to revisit precedent; statute codified existing common law and does not warrant disturbing prior holdings |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985) (Supreme Court held that certain restrictions may be the equivalent of incarceration, requiring sentence credit)
- Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 861 A.2d 394 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (en banc standard explaining when residency in treatment/CCCs destroys the sense of being at liberty on parole)
- Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 120 A.3d 1116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (reaffirmed Torres and clarified Cox requires comparison of parolee’s restrictions to those experienced in prison)