M.B. Bernardini v. PA DOC
650 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Petitioner Matthew Bernardini was serving a 3–6 year sentence for a firearms conviction (Allegheny County) and received 260 days of presentence credit on that sentence.
- While serving that sentence he was arraigned and pled guilty the same day in Greene County to possession by an inmate (drug case); Greene County Judge Dayich sentenced him to 2–4 years and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with any sentence he was then serving, "with credit for time served to be calculated by the Department of Corrections." The sheriff returned Petitioner to SCI‑Fayette the same day.
- The DOC computed no additional credit on the drug case, stating "overlapping concurrent" and that Petitioner spent no county jail time on the drug case (he was returned to SCI‑Fayette the same day).
- Petitioner sought mandamus relief in this Court to compel DOC to award pre‑sentence credit on the drug case for the period he was on bond up to sentencing; Judge Dayich denied a petition to amend the sentence, reiterating that DOC should calculate credit and referencing Pa. R. Crim. P. 705(b).
- The parties filed cross motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Court considered whether the sentencing order unambiguously awarded credit (mandamus standard) and whether DOC correctly applied the Sentencing Code when it awarded no duplicative credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC must award pre‑sentence credit on the Greene County (drug) sentence for time already credited to the firearms sentence | Bernardini: Judge Dayich effectively awarded credit and DOC must implement it; he seeks credit for the period before sentencing | DOC: No county incarceration occurred on the drug case (returned same day); Code forbids duplicative credit; no credit due | Held: No credit due; DOC correctly refused duplicative credit because time was attributable to the gun case and not to custody for the drug charge |
| Whether Judge Dayich’s order ("credit for time served to be calculated by DOC") constituted an unambiguous award of credit enforceable by mandamus | Bernardini: The judge’s language shows intent to award credit; mandamus should compel DOC to apply it | DOC: The order directed calculation, not a guaranteed award; DOC must follow the Code when computing | Held: The order did not unambiguously award credit; it directed calculation only; mandamus cannot compel implementation of an illegal result |
| Whether DOC’s computation is a purely ministerial task or requires interpretation of the Sentencing Code | Bernardini: DOC’s task is mechanical and should follow the judge’s phrasing | DOC: Task is ministerial only to the extent the law allows; it must interpret and apply §9760 to avoid illegal duplicative credit | Held: DOC’s computation must adhere to statutory requirements; it properly interpreted §9760 and denied duplicative credit |
| Whether precedent (Allen; Johnson) requires credit here despite overlap with another sentence | Bernardini: Cases allow credit toward one sentence even if time already used on another where court intent was clear | DOC: Those cases are distinguishable (express, unambiguous awards or related issues); here sentences were unrelated and no clear award existed | Held: Precedents are distinguishable; this case lacks an unambiguous judicial award that would mandate credit despite the Code |
Key Cases Cited
- Barndt v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 902 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (mandamus can compel DOC to implement a facially legal sentencing order that clearly awards credit)
- Allen v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 103 A.3d 365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (an unambiguous sentencing order awarding credit obligates DOC to apply that credit to avoid an illegal over‑maximum sentence)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Powell v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 14 A.3d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (DOC lacks authority to modify sentences but must faithfully compute sentences as a matter of law)
- Fajohn v. Dep’t of Corr., 692 A.2d 1067 (Pa. 1997) (mandamus will not compel DOC to follow an illegal sentencing order; trial court’s intent must be clear)
- Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (credit under §9760 only for custody attributable to the conviction for which credit is sought)
- McCray v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (total confinement cannot exceed the statutory maximum for the offense)