Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 39
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Pittman was sentenced March 10, 2010 to 2–4 years for PWID; released on parole December 12, 2011; original max date December 9, 2013.
- Arrested April 13, 2013, pled guilty to PWID (1–3 years) on August 1, 2013; Board lodged a warrant same day and later treated him as a convicted parole violator (CPV).
- Pittman signed a waiver admitting the parole violation and waiving a revocation hearing; the Board’s hearing report contained a checkbox for granting or denying street-time credit and listed § 9714(g) exclusions (PWID not listed).
- The Board checked "No" for credit, recommitted Pittman, and recalculated his maximum to October 21, 2015; Pittman sought administrative relief, which the Board denied May 29, 2014.
- Pittman appealed, arguing the Board failed to exercise discretion under 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1) (added by Act 122) and failed to provide written reasons for denying credit.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: it found jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 763, concluded the Board exercised discretion by checking "No," and held the Parole Code does not require a written statement of reasons when denying credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pittman) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction — can Court review Board’s denial of street-time credit? | Appeal is reviewable because it challenges recalculation of maximum sentence date. | Decision involves parole-related matters but recalculation of max date is reviewable under § 763. | Court has statutory jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 763 and precedent. |
| Whether Board failed to exercise discretion under § 6138(a)(2.1) | Board merely checked a box denying credit; that is a failure to meaningfully exercise discretion and requires remand. | The hearing report’s checkbox and completed report show the Board affirmatively denied credit — thus it exercised discretion. | Board exercised discretion by recording "No"; no abuse of discretion shown. |
| Whether Board was required to provide a written statement of reasons when denying credit | § 6138(a)(2.1) requires at least minimal explanation of how discretion was exercised; absence of explanation is error. | The Parole Code does not include a written-reasons requirement in § 6138(a)(2.1); similar written-reason rules appear elsewhere (§ 6137), and omissions are significant. | No statutory requirement to provide written reasons when denying credit; court will not impose one. |
| Due process / protected interest in street-time credit | Denial without reasons implicates procedural fairness and liberty interest. | Credit is discretionary under § 6138(a)(2.1); parolees have no protected liberty or property interest in discretionary credit. | No protected interest; no due-process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Board of Probation and Parole, 724 A.2d 319 (Pa. 1999) (orders "involving parole" are generally not appealable adjudications under Administrative Agency Law)
- McMahon v. Board of Probation and Parole, 470 A.2d 1337 (Pa. 1983) (challenge to Board recalculation of max date is reviewable in appellate jurisdiction)
- St. Clair v. Board of Probation and Parole, 493 A.2d 146 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (parolees’ claims for time credit fall within appellate jurisdiction)
- Gillespie v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Transportation, 886 A.2d 317 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (failure to consider merits and blindly apply a policy is failure to exercise discretion)
- Office of Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014) (presumption that administrative bodies act lawfully and in good faith)
- Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1989) (discretionary grants do not create a protected liberty interest)
- Young v. Board of Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) (no protected liberty interest in parole credit)