276 A.3d 1247
Pa. Commw. Ct.2022Background:
- Maurice O. White was serving an aggregate 8–22 year sentence (max date Feb. 3, 2028) and was paroled May 10, 2018.
- He was arrested Dec. 14, 2018 on firearm-related charges; Board issued a detainer and he was detained. Some municipal charges were later dismissed; he pled guilty Oct. 15, 2019 to persons not to possess a firearm and received 12–24 months with credit for time served.
- At a Dec. 20, 2019 parole revocation hearing the Board admitted a certified sentencing document and UJS docket and recommitted White as a convicted parole violator (CPV); the hearing examiner recommended no credit for time at liberty.
- The Board awarded 7 days credit (Dec. 14–21, 2018, when White was held solely on the detainer), found 3,549 days of backtime remained, set availability to serve the original term as Jan. 16, 2020, and recalculated the new maximum parole date as Oct. 4, 2029.
- White challenged the revocation (arguing hearsay/admissibility) and the Board’s credit/backtime calculations; his counsel filed an Anders brief and sought leave to withdraw.
- The Commonwealth Court granted counsel’s withdrawal request after finding procedural compliance and affirmed the Board’s order.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/admissibility of evidence to revoke parole | White argued the Board relied on inadmissible hearsay (court documents, agent testimony) and thus lacked sufficient evidence to revoke | Board relied on a certified sentencing document, UJS docket, and parole agent testimony admitted without objection; such records are admissible when authentic | Affirmed: certified sentencing document and UJS docket were admissible/substantial evidence to support revocation |
| Credit/backtime calculation and return-to-custody date | White claimed he was entitled to additional credit (e.g., Oct. 15, 2019–Jan. 22, 2022) and that the Board miscalculated his custody return date and eligibility | Board awarded 7 days for detention solely on its warrant (Dec. 14–21, 2018), applied Gaito rule for subsequent time (credited to new sentence when held on both charges), set availability date as Jan. 16, 2020, and added 3,549 days to produce new max date | Affirmed: Board correctly applied Gaito, credited 7 days, and properly added remaining backtime to Jan. 16, 2020 to arrive at new max date |
| Counsel withdrawal / procedural compliance | N/A (White was represented; counsel sought withdrawal) | Counsel complied with Craig/Turner/Anders requirements (notice, no‑merit/Anders brief, service) | Granted: Court found procedural and substantive compliance and permitted counsel to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (time incarcerated solely on a parole detainer before posting bail credits the original sentence)
- Campbell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 409 A.2d 980 (Pa. 1980) (application of statutory rule regarding service of original sentence when new SCI term is imposed)
- Anderson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 497 A.2d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (photocopies/public court records may be admissible without separate certification)
- Sanchez v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 616 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (Board may rely on certified copies of conviction and docket sheets)
- Davis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 481 A.2d 714 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (documentary evidence admissible when Board is satisfied of authenticity, relevance, accuracy)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)