M. Freeman v. PBPP
528 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- Petitioner Mark Freeman was serving an aggregate sentence with original maximum date January 28, 2018; he was paroled and recommitted multiple times for technical violations and a new criminal conviction.
- At re-parole on June 28, 2012 he had 2,040 days remaining; earlier periods on parole totaled 1,802 days.
- Police arrested Freeman on new charges October 27, 2012; he remained on the Board detainer and was convicted May 5, 2015 (sentenced to probation).
- The Board recommitted Freeman as a convicted parole violator (six months backtime concurrent with six months for a technical violation) and recalculated his maximum sentence to May 5, 2023, after crediting 920 days for pretrial detention solely on the Board detainer.
- Freeman administratively appealed asserting (1) improper extension of his maximum date by refusing to credit prior parole time ("double-dipping"), (2) the Board exceeded presumptive backtime without stating reasons, (3) unlawful delay in issuing the decision, and (4) denial of counsel. The Board denied relief; Freeman sought review in this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board improperly extended Freeman's maximum sentence by refusing to credit prior parole time ("double dip") | Freeman: Board should credit street time from prior paroles and not extend his max date | Board: Recommitment as a convicted parole violator forfeits all street time; Board may recalculate max to reflect no credit for parole time | Held: For Board. Convicted parole violator forfeits street-time credit; Board properly recalculated max to May 5, 2023 |
| Whether Board had to start recalculation from date warrant issued (Oct 27, 2012) | Freeman: Recalculation should begin on date of Board warrant | Board: Credited Freeman 920 days (Oct 27, 2012–May 5, 2015) because confinement was solely on Board detainer; recalculation from date returned to Board custody was proper | Held: For Board. Freeman received credit for detention period; recalculation correct |
| Whether Board violated due process by exceeding presumptive ranges for backtime without stating reasons | Freeman: Board imposed backtime beyond presumptive without reasons | Board: Backtime imposed (six months each, concurrent) is within presumptive ranges for both violations | Held: For Board. Backtime within presumptive ranges; no interference warranted |
| Whether delay in issuing decision or lack of counsel violated rights | Freeman: Board delayed decision; was denied counsel at revocation | Board: Decision issued ~3 months after admission; Freeman waived right to revocation hearing and counsel; no prejudice shown | Held: For Board. Delay not shown to cause prejudice; Freeman knowingly waived counsel and hearing; statutory right to counsel for appeal did not produce reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (parolee recommitted as convicted parole violator forfeits street-time credit earned while on parole)
- Melendez v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 944 A.2d 824 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (forfeiture of all street time when recommitted as convicted parole violator)
- Richards v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 20 A.3d 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (maximum date may be extended to account for all street-time when recommitted for a criminal conviction)
- Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (Board authority to extend maximum term expiration dates for convicted parole violators does not usurp sentencing court)
- Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 574 A.2d 558 (Pa. 1990) (Court will not disturb Board recommitment where backtime falls within presumptive range)