M.B. Bernardini v. PA DOC, 650 M.D. 2016

Petitioner Matthew Bernardini was serving a 3–6 year sentence for a firearms offense and was awarded 260 days of pre-sentence credit on that sentence.
While serving that sentence he pled guilty in Greene County to possession by an inmate (drug case); the plea, sentence, and return to SCI‑Fayette all occurred the same day.
The Greene County judge ordered the drug-case sentence to run concurrent with any sentence Bernardini was then serving and directed the Department of Corrections (DOC) to "calculate" credit for time served.
The DOC assigned no pre‑sentence credit to the drug case, citing overlapping concurrent time (Bernardini was returned to SCI‑Fayette the same day and did not spend county jail time for the drug charge).
Bernardini sought mandamus relief in this Court to compel DOC to award credit for the pre‑sentence period; he argued the sentencing order manifested intent to award credit. DOC argued awarding duplicate credit would violate the Sentencing Code.
The Court denied Bernardini’s motion, granted DOC’s cross motion, and entered judgment for DOC, concluding no credit was due consistent with the sentencing order and Section 9760 of the Sentencing Code.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOC must award pre‑sentence credit to the drug case for the period Bernardini was on bond and returned the same day	Bernardini: the sentencing order directed DOC to calculate credit and thus manifested intent to award credit for the pre‑sentence period	DOC: no county incarceration attributable to the drug charge occurred; awarding duplicate credit would contravene the Sentencing Code	Held: DOC correctly declined to award credit; the order directed calculation, not an unequivocal credit award, and Code forbids double credit
Whether mandamus can compel DOC to implement the judge’s directive here	Bernardini: mandamus appropriate because the sentencing order required DOC to give credit	DOC: mandamus cannot be used to enforce an illegal sentencing result that conflicts with the Code	Held: mandamus unavailable because the sentencing order was legal on its face and did not clearly and unambiguously award credit that the Code would prohibit

Barndt v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 902 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (mandamus available to compel correct computation when sentencing order clearly gives credit)
Powell v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 14 A.3d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (sentence is question of law; DOC must faithfully carry out sentences but may not implement illegal orders)
Fajohn v. Dep’t of Corr., 692 A.2d 1067 (Pa. 1997) (mandamus will not compel DOC to follow an illegal sentencing order)
Allen v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 103 A.3d 365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (where sentencing order unambiguously awards credit, DOC must implement or sentence may exceed statutory maximum)
McCray v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (total confinement cannot exceed the statutory maximum)
Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (credit only granted for custody attributable to the offense for which sentence is imposed)