R. Bailey v. PPB, 323 A.3d 259

Raymont Bailey was originally sentenced to 2½ to 10 years for drug and firearm offenses, became eligible for parole in April 2015, and was released in August 2015.
As a condition of parole, Bailey was warned that future convictions while on parole could result in recommitment with no credit for 'street time' (time spent at liberty on parole).
In February 2017, Bailey was arrested for a technical violation and later recommitted as a technical parole violator (TPV); he ultimately spent 569 days at liberty on parole before this recommitment.
In 2022, Bailey was convicted of aggravated assault (a violent felony) and other offenses, and the Parole Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator (CPV), denying him credit for his 569 days of street time under current statute.
Bailey appealed, arguing that the Board could not revoke previously awarded credit for his street time, and filed a motion for remand to present further arguments, which was denied by the Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board erred by forfeiting Bailey's credit for 569 days of street time upon recommitment as a CPV after his new violent conviction	Bailey: Board was required to grant him credit for 569 days he already received as a TPV; Board's action conflicts with prior case law (Penjuke)	Board: Statutory amendments post-Penjuke require forfeiture of street time when a CPV is recommitted for a violent offense	The court held the Board acted properly and was mandated to forfeit Bailey’s street time upon CPV recommitment for a violent crime

Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (clarifies that, generally, CPVs receive no credit for street time unless statute provides otherwise)
Penjuke v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 203 A.3d 401 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (previously limited Board's authority to revoke street time credit, but rendered inapposite by later statutory amendments)