Palmer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
134 A.3d 160
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Palmer was paroled from a 2.5–5 year state sentence (original sentence) and previously served some backtime for a 2010 theft conviction; he was re-paroled in June 2011.
- In June 2013 Palmer was arrested on aggravated assault and other charges; a Board detainer issued and he remained in county jail because he did not post bail.
- Palmer pled guilty to aggravated assault in March 2014; the trial court sentenced him July 22, 2014 to 15–30 months and, by written order, stated the sentence would run concurrently with any state parole backtime “pursuant to an agreement between the parties.”
- The Board held a recommitment hearing and, on March 2015 administrative decision, recommitted Palmer as a convicted parole violator (CPV) for 24 months’ backtime and recalculated his prior-sentence maximum date to May 27, 2017.
- Palmer appealed administratively and to this Court, arguing the Board had agreed (through counsel and a Board agent) not to oppose concurrent sentencing and that he should receive credit starting June 28, 2013; the Board denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board must honor an agreement to run CPV backtime concurrently with a new state sentence | Palmer: Board agreed (via counsel/agent) not to oppose concurrent sentencing; he relied on that when pleading guilty, so agreement must be enforced | Board: Statutory law requires CPVs serve backtime before new state sentences; agreements or court orders to make them concurrent are invalid | Held: Agreement invalid under Section 6138(a)(5) and controlling precedent; Board correctly required backtime to be served before new sentence |
| Whether Palmer is entitled to credit from June 28, 2013 (date of arrest/detainer) toward his original sentence | Palmer: Detainer and detention began June 28, 2013, so credit should start then | Board: Palmer was held on county charges and bail was unsatisfied; pre-sentence custody without bail must be credited to the new sentence, not backtime | Held: No credit from June 28, 2013; pre-sentence custody applied to new sentence per Armbruster and related precedent |
| Proper computation date for recalculated maximum of original sentence | Palmer: (implicitly) earlier credit or concurrent running would shorten original max date | Board: New maximum computed from date second signature for recommitment obtained (July 30, 2014), then add remaining days of original sentence | Held: Board correctly calculated new maximum from recommitment signature date, yielding May 27, 2017 |
| Remedy where plea was induced by an invalid promise of concurrency | Palmer: Because he waived rights in reliance on the agreement, relief should be enforced | Board: Agreement was void; remedy lies in trial court via vacatur of plea, not in ordering concurrency | Held: Any plea agreement induced by an invalid promise is void; proper remedy is to seek plea vacatur in trial court (Zuber principle) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Zuber, 353 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1976) (trial court cannot order new state sentence to run concurrently with CPV backtime)
- Commonwealth v. Dorian, 468 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 1983) (reaffirming that courts may not make CPV backtime run concurrently with new sentence)
- Rivera v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 470 A.2d 1088 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (statute governing CPVs supersedes general concurrent-sentencing statute)
- Walker v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 729 A.2d 634 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (CPV backtime must be served prior to new state sentence)
- Hall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 733 A.2d 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (Board may not impose backtime to run concurrently with new sentence)
- Wilson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 124 A.3d 767 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Section 6138(a)(5) requires serving backtime before new state sentence; maximum recalculation rules)
- Harris v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 393 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (Board cannot impose backtime to run concurrently with new sentence)
- Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (pre-sentence custody when bail not satisfied credits to new sentence, not to backtime)
- Campbell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 980 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (date for computing new maximum ties to recommitment procedural completion)