Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 364
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Miskovitch was released on parole in 2001 from aggregated sentences with an original maximum date in 2008; he committed crimes in July–August 2004.
- In 2009–2010 he was convicted (including guilty-but-mentally-ill pleas) and sentenced on multiple consolidated matters from his 2004 crime spree.
- The Board previously recommitted him as a convicted parole violator to serve backtime (48 months from a 2009 conviction; 21 months from 2010 convictions, to run concurrently) and set a parole-violation maximum of September 24, 2015.
- Miskovitch appealed administratively and to this Court, arguing (inter alia) that: (1) guilty-but-mentally-ill pleas cannot support recommitment under 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(1); (2) the Board lacked jurisdiction after his original maximum expired; (3) insufficient evidence supported recommitment; and (4) the Board failed to credit electronic home monitoring time.
- Appointed counsel filed a no-merit (Anders-style) letter and sought leave to withdraw; counsel complied with procedural requirements and the Court conducted an independent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guilty-but-mentally-ill (GBMI) pleas support recommitment under § 6138(a)(1) | GBMI is omitted from § 6138(a)(1), so GBMI pleas are not authorized grounds for recommitment | GBMI is substantively a conviction (guilt established); omission is not an intentional exclusion and GBMI carries the same collateral consequences as guilty pleas | Court held GBMI pleas can support recommitment; omission does not preclude Board action |
| Whether Board lost jurisdiction after original maximum expired | Board lost jurisdiction once original maximum passed and administrative delinquency designation does not restore parolee status | Board retains jurisdiction to recommit when offenses occurred during parole, even if conviction occurs after maximum expiration | Court held Board retained jurisdiction because offenses occurred while on parole |
| Whether substantial evidence supported recommitment | Convictions based on GBMI pleas are inadequate to establish convictions for recommitment | Board introduced sentencing orders and court documents signed by sentencing judge sufficient to prove convictions | Court held record evidence (signed sentencing orders, exhibits) constituted substantial evidence supporting recommitment |
| Whether time on electronic home monitoring required credit against recalculated maximum | Miskovitch argued he was entitled to credit for 30 days of home monitoring | Electronic home monitoring does not constitute custody for credit purposes | Court held no credit was due for electronic home monitoring time |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miskovitch, 64 A.3d 672 (Pa. Super. 2013) (prior appellate proceedings involving Miskovitch)
- Reavis v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 909 A.2d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (Board retains jurisdiction for crimes committed while on parole even after maximum expires)
- Adams v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (same principle on Board jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Sohmer, 546 A.2d 601 (Pa. 1988) (GBMI does not mitigate guilt or punishments; GBMI is guilt-equivalent)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682 (Pa. 2004) (GBMI conviction carries full consequences and may be used as aggravator)
- Sanchez v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 616 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (sentencing orders signed by judge suffice to establish convictions at Board hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Kyle, 874 A.2d 12 (Pa. 2005) (electronic home monitoring is not custody for credit)
- Canty v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 887 A.2d 831 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (no credit for electronic monitoring)
- Hughes v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 977 A.2d 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawal in parole revocation appeals)