Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
120 A.3d 1116
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Medina, an inmate at SCI Rockview, was paroled to Liberty Management CCF from 11/21/2011 to 2/8/2012 (79 days).
- Upon arrest for a new crime, the Board detained Medina and recommitted him as a convicted parole violator to serve backtime with no credit for the 79 days at Liberty Management CCF.
- A Cox-required hearing was held; testimony included Medina, Liberty Management CCF Director, and a parole agent.
- The Board found the facility’s restrictions did not amount to incarceration and denied credit for the 79 days.
- Medina challenged the Board’s denial, administratively and in court.
- Court affirms the Board, applying Cox v. BPP; concludes the 79 days were not equivalent to incarceration under the facts presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board properly denied credit under Cox framework | Medina argues the 79 days had same restrictions as pre-release inmates, constituting incarceration. | Board contends restrictions were not equivalent to incarceration; facts show parolees could leave unescorted and were not confined. | Affirmed; Board’s findings supported; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether Medina met burden to prove the facility’s restrictions equaled incarceration | Medina showed he was subject to same rules as inmates and that searches and confinement were coercive. | Board found programming differed for parolees; not proven equivalent to prison restrictions. | Board’s factual findings adequate; no reversal. |
| Whether Torres concurrence requires changing Cox analysis | Medina urges adopting Torres concurrence approach to credit when restrictions mirror inmate conditions. | Court should adhere to Williams/Rosa-Perez/VanHook line; Torres concurrence not controlling. | Rejected; followed existing line of precedent; no shift in analysis. |
| Impact of programming differences between parolees and pre-release inmates | Different programming could render restrictions equivalent to incarceration. | Programming differences do not automatically equate to confinement; Board’s distinction stands. | Affirmed; Board properly found distinct programming. |
| Effect of random searches on liberty status | Suspicion-less searches under parole conditions convert stay into confinement. | Such searches are a permissible parole condition and do not convert to confinement. | Affirmed; searches do not render stay incarceration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985) (defines 'at liberty on parole' and framework for credit in confinement-like programs)
- Harden v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 980 A.2d 691 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (reviews factors for whether a facility is prison-like; supports deferential review of Board findings)
- Figueroa v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 900 A.2d 949 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (parolee not entitled to credit where confinement not prison-like (non-locked, escorted restrictions))
- Detar v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 890 A.2d 27 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (factors for evaluating confinement restrictions in CCCs/CCFs)
- Meehan v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 808 A.2d 313 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (parolee credit denied for certain treatment facility stays)
- Torres v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 861 A.2d 394 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (concurrence discussing whether parolees can be treated like inmates for credit)