Penjuke v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
203 A.3d 401
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2019Background
- Petitioner Martin Penjuke was sentenced to 1 year 9 months to 9 years; released on parole in 2013, served ~793 days on parole in good standing, was later recommitted as a technical parole violator (TPV) and credited for those days. He was reparoled in 2016, then convicted in 2017 and recommitted as a convicted parole violator (CPV).
- Upon CPV recommitment the Board (1) declined to award any credit for time on the reparole that led to the CPV, and (2) rescinded the 793 days of street-time credit Penjuke had previously received as a TPV, extending his maximum sentence date.
- Penjuke sought administrative relief and petitioned for review, arguing the Board lacked authority to revoke credit previously granted under the TPV statute and that the Board failed to give the Pittman-required contemporaneous reasons when denying CPV credit.
- The Board relied on Commonwealth Court precedent (Anderson/Andrews/Richards line) allowing the Board to recapture prior street-time when a parolee is later recommitted as a CPV.
- The en banc Commonwealth Court (McCullough, J.) reexamined those precedents in light of the 2012 amendment to 61 Pa.C.S. §6138(a) (adding §6138(a)(2.1)), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Pittman, and this Court’s Young decision, and concluded the Board lacked authority to revoke TPV-awarded credit when later recommitting a parolee as a CPV.
- Court reversed insofar as the Board rescinded the 793 days, remanded with directions to reinstate those days and to issue a new Pittman-compliant statement addressing only the time spent on the reparole that produced the CPV decision.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (Penjuke) | Respondent (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board may, upon recommitment as a CPV, revoke street-time credit previously granted to the parolee when earlier recommitted as a TPV | Board lacks statutory authority to "reach back" and rescind TPV-granted credit; once awarded, credit is applied to the sentence and cannot be taken away | Anderson/Andrews/Richards allow the Board to forfeit all street-time on CPV recommitment; the Board did not exercise discretion here so precedent controls | Court held the Board lacks authority to revoke street-time credit previously granted under §6138(c)(2); Anderson/Andrews line is no longer controlling post-2012 amendment and Young |
| Whether due process and Pittman require the Board to provide a contemporaneous reason and a hearing opportunity when denying or rescinding credit under §6138(a)(2.1) | Because §6138(c)(2) creates a statutory entitlement to TPV credit, revocation implicates liberty interests and requires process; Pittman requires contemporaneous reasons when denying CPV credit | Board argued it followed statute and precedent; also sought remand to supply a Pittman statement | Court directed remand: Board must reinstate TPV credit and issue a new Pittman-compliant adjudication explaining only its action regarding credit for the reparole period that produced the CPV finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 472 A.2d 1168 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (earlier Commonwealth Court holding that CPV recommitment forfeits all street-time, including time previously credited after TPV recommitment)
- Andrews v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 516 A.2d 838 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (followed Anderson; interpreted statutory language to deny CPVs any street-time credit)
- Richards v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 20 A.3d 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (en banc) (reaffirmed Anderson/Andrews under codified §6138 prior to 2012 amendment)
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa.) (2017) (Supreme Court: §6138(a)(2.1) grants Board discretion to award CPV street-time credit and requires contemporaneous statement of reasons when denying credit)
- Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 189 A.3d 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (en banc) (held Board lacks authority to revoke street-time credit it previously awarded to a CPV; credit, once applied, cannot be placed in escrow for later forfeiture)
- Palmer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 704 A.2d 195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (discussed automatic forfeiture under prior statutory scheme and due process ramifications)