M.D. Paschal v. PA BPP
421 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- Paschal was sentenced to 2 years, 3 months to 6 years on a drug conviction; original max date July 1, 2016.
- He was paroled October 3, 2012, and signed parole conditions warning that a conviction on parole could result in recommitment with no credit for time at liberty.
- While on parole he incurred multiple arrests, admitted technical violations twice, and was recommitted to parole violator programs; he later pled guilty in Westmoreland County (Feb. 10, 2015) and received an 11.5–23 month county sentence.
- The Board recommitted Paschal as a convicted parole violator (CPV) on June 15, 2015, ordered 36 months backtime, and recalculated his state-sentence maximum to April 9, 2019 after crediting 86 days of confinement.
- Paschal administratively challenged the recalculation (arguing incorrect backtime and separation-of-powers), the Board affirmed, and he petitioned for review in Commonwealth Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s recalculation of Paschal’s max date violates separation of powers by usurping judicial sentencing | Paschal: Board’s action alters judicial sentence and therefore violates separation of powers | Board: Statutory authority permits recalculation and forfeiture of time at liberty for CPVs; not a judicial usurpation | Rejected — prior precedent and statute permit Board recalculation; no separation-of-powers violation |
| Whether Paschal is entitled to credit for time spent at Alle‑Kiski community corrections facility | Paschal: (raised on appeal brief) seeks credit for time at community corrections | Board: Issue waived because not raised in administrative appeal | Waived — claim not raised administratively, therefore not considered |
| Whether the Board’s failure to mention forfeiture in its decision voids the recommitment | Paschal: June 15, 2015 decision void because it didn’t state forfeiture of time at liberty | Board: Forfeiture authority appears in parole conditions and statute; omission in decision does not negate authority | Rejected — parole conditions and statute suffice; decision not void |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) (Board may recalculates CPV sentence without encroaching on judicial sentencing power)
- Davidson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 33 A.3d 682 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (denial of credit for time at liberty to recommitted direct violator does not violate separation of powers)
- Chesson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 47 A.3d 875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (issues not raised in administrative appeal are waived)
- McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 631 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (same waiver principle for administrative appeals)