Moss v. SCI - Mahanoy Superintendent Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
194 A.3d 1130
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Craig Moss received a 20-year sentence for arson (Mar. 5, 1997) and a consecutive 10-year sentence for aggravated assault (May 1, 2000); aggregated maximum release date recalculated to March 5, 2027.
- Moss was paroled on April 7, 2008, and later arrested on new charges on January 15, 2017; the Board lodged a detainer and Moss filed a pro se habeas corpus petition on October 5, 2017 while detained.
- Moss argued his minimum terms (42 months for first sentence, 15 months for second) should have run concurrently, leaving him having completed his sentences and thus unlawfully detained.
- The trial court issued a rule to show cause and directed disposition under Pa.R.C.P. 206.7; the Board filed an answer disputing completion of sentences and asserting aggregated terms were proper.
- The trial court denied the habeas petition on November 3, 2017; Moss appealed and this Court affirmed on August 29, 2018.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 206.7 | Trial court erred by deciding petition without allowing discovery/oral argument | Rule 206.7 permits disposition on petition and answer when no disputed material facts exist | Court: No error — Moss admitted no disputed material facts; Rule 206.7 disposition appropriate |
| Whether Board admitted Moss’s averments | Board’s failure to respond to numbered averments amounted to admission that Moss completed his sentences | Board’s answer denied legal conclusion and factual assertions on completion; legal conclusions need not be admitted | Court: No admission — legal conclusions deemed denied; Board effectively disputed completion |
| Legality/enforceability of aggregated sentence | Aggregation was improper; Board lacked authority so sentence is illegal | Sentences were consecutive; aggregation is automatic and mandatory under §9757 | Court: Aggregation proper; sentence enforceable |
| Credit for time served / constructive parole | Moss entitled to credit on both sentences for time spent on Board detainer; or was constructively paroled earlier | Martin does not allow double-credit; parole (including constructive parole) is discretionary; record shows Moss was not constructively paroled earlier | Court: Moss received proper credit; not constructively paroled; argument fails |
| Sua sponte correction of sentence / timeliness | Court should correct an alleged illegal sentence (failure to credit seven months pretrial) sua sponte | Claims cognizable under PCRA; habeas not substitute for untimely post-conviction relief; Moss’s petition untimely and no PCRA exceptions pleaded | Court: No jurisdiction to correct sentence here — PCRA timeliness bars relief |
| Supremacy Clause challenge re: §9757 | Sentencing court’s failure to state aggregated minimum violated mandatory statutory command creating a liberty interest — raising Supremacy Clause issue | §9757 aggregation operates automatically; sentencing judge’s failure to state aggregated minimum is not fatal | Court: No Supremacy Clause violation; statutory scheme and precedent supply aggregation by operation of law |
| Whether Moss fully served sentences and is entitled to release | Once first-sentence minimum expired, Moss was constructively paroled to second sentence and thus has fully served aggregate minimums | Parole is not automatic; Moss had remaining maximum term when paroled in 2008 and has not completed sentence | Court: Moss has not served his sentence and is not entitled to release |
Key Cases Cited
- Forbes v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 931 A.3d 88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (aggregation of consecutive sentences is automatic and mandatory under §9757)
- Gillespie v. Dep't of Corrections, 527 A.2d 1061 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (failure to state aggregated minimum at sentencing is not fatal; aggregation by operation of §9757)
- Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (crediting confinement when held on both a Board detainer and new criminal charges)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA one-year filing rule is jurisdictional; courts cannot hear untimely collateral claims absent statutory exception)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 852 A.2d 392 (Pa. Super. 2004) (attack on failure to give credit is a legality claim but cognizable under PCRA framework)
- Ray v. Howard, 395 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (constructive parole concept: simultaneous serving of remaining max of first and min of second)
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Rudolph N. Rohn Co., 753 A.2d 286 (Pa. Super. 2000) (if an answer does not dispute issues of fact, court shall decide petition)
- U.S. Spaces, Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway Home Servs., Fox & Roach, 165 A.3d 931 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Rule 206 predecessor supports deciding matter on petition and answer where no disputed facts)