M. Saleem v. PBPP and Dept. of Corrections, 14 M.D. 2017

Background

Petitioner Mohammad Sohail Saleem pled guilty (June 3, 2015) to three counts of indecent assault, was designated a sexually violent predator, and received an aggregate sentence with minimum parole date Dec. 2, 2016 and maximum Mar. 2, 2025.
As part of his plea, Saleem expected immediate deportation to Pakistan, but ICE did not deport him immediately.
On Nov. 29, 2016 the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole held a parole interview and denied parole, citing poor program compliance, risk/needs assessment, DOC negative recommendation, lack of remorse, refusal to accept responsibility, and lack of motivation.
Saleem filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Commonwealth Court asking the Court to order the Board to schedule another parole hearing and immediately parole him for deportation; both parties moved for summary relief.
The Court considered whether mandamus could compel the Board to re-parole or otherwise direct the Board’s exercise of discretion and whether constitutional or plea-related challenges could be raised via mandamus.
The Court granted the Board’s application for summary relief and denied Saleem’s, holding mandamus is not available to direct the Board’s discretionary denial of parole and that collateral challenges to the conviction belong in post-conviction proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus may compel the Board to grant parole or re-parole Saleem	Saleem asked the Court to order another hearing and immediate parole (for deportation)	Board argued it exercised discretion by holding a hearing and issuing a reasoned denial; mandamus cannot direct discretionary decisions	Denied: mandamus cannot be used to force the Board to exercise discretion in a particular way or to re-parole an inmate
Whether the Board violated constitutional rights by denying parole for lack of participation in sex-offender treatment (due process, Fifth Amendment, equal protection)	Saleem contended conditioning parole on treatment violated due process, self-incrimination, and equal protection	Board relied on precedent that refusal to admit guilt or decline treatment can have adverse parole consequences and that parole is discretionary; treatment conditions are rationally related to rehabilitation/public safety	Denied: no constitutional violation; asserting Fifth Amendment may carry adverse consequences in parole context; treatment conditioning is permissible
Whether the Board is bound by plea agreement promises (immediate deportation)	Saleem argued he was induced to plead guilty by promise of immediate deportation, making incarceration illegal	Board argued plea agreements bind only the Commonwealth and defendant, not the Board; Board not party to such contracts	Denied: Board not bound by plea agreement; parole decisions independent of plea promises
Whether alleged Brady or counsel-deportation advice errors can be raised via mandamus	Saleem asserted prosecutor withheld favorable evidence (Brady) and counsel misadvised re: deportation	Board argued collateral attack on conviction belongs under the Post-Conviction Relief Act, not mandamus	Denied: such claims must be pursued via PCRA or appropriate collateral review, not mandamus

Key Cases Cited

McCray v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (elements and limits of mandamus against DOC/agency)
Nickson v. Board of Probation and Parole, 880 A.2d 21 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (mandamus cannot direct agency to exercise discretion in a particular way)
Weaver v. Board of Probation and Parole, 688 A.2d 766 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (inmate’s Fifth Amendment assertion at parole hearing does not prevent adverse consequences; parole is discretionary)
Sontag v. Ward, 789 A.2d 778 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (conditioning parole on admission and treatment is rational and does not violate equal protection)
Staton v. Board of Probation and Parole, 171 A.3d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (Board not bound by plea agreements between Commonwealth and defendant)
Coady v. Vaughn, 770 A.2d 287 (Pa. 2001) (General Assembly conferred sole discretion to Board to determine parole eligibility)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel’s duty to advise re: deportation consequences relevant to collateral challenges)