Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
159 A.3d 466
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Pittman was paroled in 2011 after a PWID conviction; while on parole he committed another PWID offense, pled guilty, waived revocation hearing, and was recommitted under his original sentence.
- The Board’s revocation hearing form checked “No” to awarding credit for time spent at liberty on parole and recalculated Pittman’s maximum sentence date; no contemporaneous explanation was provided.
- On administrative review the Board told Pittman he “automatically forfeited” credit as a convicted parole violator (CPV), citing pre‑2012 statutory understanding.
- Pittman petitioned the Commonwealth Court arguing the Board abused discretion by not exercising individualized discretion and by failing to state reasons; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and held the Board abused its discretion by concluding it had no discretion under 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1); the Court also held the Board must provide a contemporaneous statement explaining denials of CPV credit to allow meaningful appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board abused discretion by denying CPV credit without individualized consideration | Pittman: denial was based on mistaken belief of automatic forfeiture; failure to exercise any discretion is an abuse | Board: checking “No” on form showed exercise of broad statutory discretion; no reasons required by statute | Court: Board abused discretion — statute gives Board discretion and it misapplied law by treating denial as automatic; remand required |
| Whether the Board must provide a contemporaneous statement explaining denial of CPV credit | Pittman: contemporaneous reason is required so appellate courts can review exercise of discretion | Board: §6138(a)(2.1) contains no express requirement to state reasons; form check suffices | Court: Board must provide a contemporaneous statement of reasons for denying CPV credit to permit meaningful appellate review |
| Whether decisions denying CPV credit are reviewable on appeal | Pittman: calculation extending maximum date is reviewable after administrative review | Board: generally broad parole discretion not subject to review | Court: when denial affects computation of maximum sentence date and after administrative review, appellate review is available |
| Whether pre‑2012 statutory change affects CPV eligibility for credit | Pittman: post‑2012 amendment made credit discretionary, not automatically denied | Board: relied on older understanding in administrative reply | Court: statute post‑2012 clearly makes credit discretionary; Board misapplied law by treating forfeiture as automatic |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillespie v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Transp., 886 A.2d 317 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (blind adherence to policy that forecloses individualized decision can be abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Rieck Inv. Corp., 213 A.2d 277 (Pa. 1965) (courts should not add requirements to statute that legislature omitted)
- Zappala v. Brandolini Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2006) (definition of abuse of discretion includes misapplication of law or manifestly unreasonable results)
- Goods v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 912 A.2d 226 (Pa. 2006) (parole revocation decisions can be governed by Administrative Agency Law procedural framework)
- McMahon v. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 470 A.2d 1337 (Pa. 1983) (board determinations affecting maximum sentence date are subject to appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Artis, 439 A.2d 1199 (Pa. Super. 1982) (appellate courts must be able to determine that a sentencing court exercised discretion)