117 A.3d 362
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Price was paroled with an original maximum sentence date of August 18, 2012. While on parole he was charged April 29, 2012; the Board lodged detainer/warrant and detained him pending resolution of new charges.
- Price was released from Board custody on October 1, 2012 upon reaching the original maximum date. He was later convicted July 31, 2013 of two DUI counts, sentenced to county time, and granted immediate parole by the sentencing court. The Board was notified August 27, 2013 and lodged a warrant September 21, 2013.
- Price waived a revocation hearing; the Board recom-mitted him as a convicted parole violator and recalculated his maximum date to November 29, 2016, denying credit for time at liberty.
- Price administratively appealed pro se challenging (inter alia) the Board’s authority to change the court-imposed maximum and its credit calculations; the Board denied relief, asserting statutory authority to recalculate and to withhold credit.
- On judicial review, Price argued (1) the Board miscalculated credit and (2) the Board lost jurisdiction because it did not declare him delinquent before his original maximum expired. The Board argued the credit claim was waived for failure to raise it administratively.
Issues
| Issue | Price's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board miscalculated credit and failed to award all time credits | Price: Board erred in its credit calculations and withheld time improperly | Board: Price failed to raise specific calculation challenges administratively; issue waived | Waived — petitioner did not preserve detailed credit calculation challenge before the Board, so court will not review |
| Whether Board lost jurisdiction to recommit because it did not declare Price delinquent before original max expired | Price: Board needed to declare delinquency prior to expiration to retain jurisdiction to recommit after later conviction | Board: Statute (61 Pa.C.S. §6138(a)(1)) permits recommitment for crimes committed while on parole; declaration of delinquency is administrative and not jurisdictional | Held for Board — failure to declare delinquent before expiration did not divest Board of jurisdiction; recom-mitment lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa.Cmwlth.) (Board retains jurisdiction to recommit parolee convicted of crime committed while on parole even after original maximum expired)
- Kuykendall v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 363 A.2d 866 (Pa.Cmwlth.) (Board may recommit and recompute sentence where crime occurred on parole; delinquency declaration not a jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Williams v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 654 A.2d 235 (Pa.Cmwlth.) (Board’s failure to lodge detainer before expiration does not necessarily prevent later revocation when agent lacked reason to believe violation before expiration)
- Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 77 A.3d 66 (Pa.Cmwlth.) (Board retains jurisdiction where crimes occurred during parole; administrative declaration of delinquency is irrelevant to jurisdiction)
- Passaro v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 499 A.2d 725 (Pa.Cmwlth.) (Board’s declaration of delinquency is administrative and does not determine final disposition)