M. Richardson v. PA BPP
1807 C.D. 2015
Pa. Commw. Ct.Oct 4, 2016Background
- Mark Richardson was sentenced in 2005 to 6–12 years in Philadelphia County, with original parole minimum January 15, 2011 and maximum January 15, 2017; he was paroled in October 2010.
- His parole conditions, acknowledged in writing, warned that a conviction while on parole could result in recommitment to serve the unexpired term with no credit for street time.
- In March 2013 Richardson was arrested and later pled guilty (Feb. 2014) to third‑degree murder, related conspiracy and robbery counts; he waived a parole revocation hearing and counsel in March 2014.
- The Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator and, after sentencing on the new convictions, recalculated his remaining backtime as 2,159 days (no credit for street time), producing a new parole maximum date of December 14, 2020.
- Richardson filed an administrative appeal (received July 16, 2015) asserting lack of Board jurisdiction to extend his parole maximum and alleging due process violations; the Board initially denied the filing as untimely but later waived untimeliness and denied relief on the merits.
- Richardson appealed to this Court pro se; the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s recommitment and recalculation of the parole maximum on October 4, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board had authority to recalculate/extend Richardson’s parole maximum after his new convictions | Richardson: Board lacked jurisdiction and unlawfully modified or imposed a new sentence by extending his parole maximum date | Board: Parole is administrative; upon conviction on new offenses the Board may recommit and recalculate maximum and reparole dates, generally denying credit for street time for convicted parole violators | Court held Board had authority to recalculate and extend the parole maximum; affirmed recommitment and new maximum date |
| Whether denial of credit for time at liberty on parole violated due process | Richardson: extension of parole maximum without credit for street time deprived him of due process / altered sentence unlawfully | Board: Denying credit for street time to convicted parole violators is permissible and a routine exercise of penological authority; parole remains a privilege under supervision | Court held denying street‑time credit does not violate constitutional guarantees and is within Board’s discretion and authority |
| Whether Richardson waived challenges to the amount of backtime by waiving a revocation hearing | Richardson: sought administrative review arguing errors in computation and procedure | Board: Richardson waived hearing and any challenge to backtime amount by admitting convictions and waiving the parole revocation hearing; where recommitment is within presumptive range courts will not review backtime | Court noted waiver of hearing and held Richardson forfeited claims that could have been raised at the hearing; refused to disturb backtime within presumptive range |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) (parole is administrative discretion; denial of street‑time credit for convicted parole violators is penologically reasonable)
- Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 392 A.2d 343 (Pa. 1978) (Board’s extension of maximum term does not usurp sentencing judge or violate due process)
- Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (clarifies limits on Gaito but recognizes Board authority to administer parole system)
- Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (recommitted parolee must serve remainder of original term; court discusses backtime computation)
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 131 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (statutory norm is denial of credit for street time to convicted parole violators)
- Weaver v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 688 A.2d 766 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (parolee continues to serve sentence under supervision while on parole)
- Fisher v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 62 A.3d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (waiver of parole revocation hearing forfeits claims that could have been raised there)