R.C. Comrie v. PA DOC and PBPP, etc.
142 A.3d 995
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Comrie was arrested in 2002 on a federal warrant and separately charged in Pennsylvania; he ultimately received a federal sentence (100 months) and a state sentence (two to four years, December 17, 2004) ordered to run consecutive to any federal sentence.
- The trial court later granted a PCRA petition and issued an Amended Sentencing Order (June 9, 2011) awarding Comrie pre-sentence credit for time in state custody from Jan. 19, 2002 to Dec. 22, 2004; the Superior Court subsequently vacated that portion of the trial court’s order in Comrie Superior I.
- Comrie was returned to state custody in June 2012, released on parole Feb. 14, 2013, and the DOC/PBPP confirmed sentence completion June 15–18, 2013; he was re-incarcerated on a detainer/bench warrant May 15–29, 2015.
- Comrie filed a pro se petition for mandamus in this Court (July 2015) seeking immediate release, asserting (1) he is entitled to the pre-sentence credit awarded by the Amended Sentencing Order and (2) alternatively, he is entitled to credit for time spent at liberty between his release in 2013 and re-incarceration in 2015 because his release was due to respondents’ error.
- Respondents argued they must follow the original Sentencing Order (which awarded no pre-sentence credit), lack authority to alter a sentencing court’s order, and that Comrie’s proper remedy for sentencing-credit claims is through the PCRA or appellate process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-sentence credit for Jan. 19, 2002–Dec. 22, 2004 | Comrie says Amended Sentencing Order granted this credit and respondents applied it when they released him in 2013 | Respondents say Superior Court vacated that credit; they must follow original Sentencing Order and lack authority to award credit | Demurred: claim dismissed. Vacating Order voided the trial court’s credit; mandamus improper to compel DOC/PBPP to apply credit |
| Credit for time spent erroneously at liberty (Feb. 14 or June 15, 2013–May 20, 2015) | Comrie says respondents’ representations and actions led him reasonably to believe sentence was complete; equity and right to serve sentence continuously entitle him to credit for that period | Respondents deny credit entitlement and assert other remedies exist; argue they followed sentencing documents | Survives demurrer: petition states a viable claim for equitable credit for time erroneously at liberty; respondents must answer |
| Proper remedy for sentencing-credit disputes | Comrie seeks mandamus in Commonwealth Court | Respondents argue PCRA or direct appeal is exclusive remedy for sentence legality | Partially held: mandamus cannot be used to obtain pre-sentence credit (PCRA/direct appeal exclusive), but mandamus may proceed on equitable claim for credit for time erroneously at liberty |
| Respondents’ duty/authority to recalculate sentences | Comrie contends respondents misapplied/removed credit | Respondents contend they must implement sentencing court’s original order and cannot alter it | Court: DOC/PBPP lack authority to change sentencing order; their duty is to apply the sentencing order as written, except mandamus may compel proper computation where ministerial duty exists on remaining equitable claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 14 A.3d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (mandamus can compel proper sentence computation)
- Barndt v. Department of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to compel ministerial duties)
- Black v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 889 A.2d 672 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standards for ruling on preliminary objections/demurrer)
- Allen v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections, 103 A.3d 365 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (duty to apply credit arises from sentencing court’s order; remedies for credit errors)
- McCray v. Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa.) (DOC lacks authority to award credit not ordered by sentencing court)
- Hoyt v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Pennsylvania Board of Parole and Probation, 79 A.3d 741 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (limitations on DOC authority to alter sentencing provisions)
- Jacobs v. Robinson, 410 A.2d 959 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (equitable credit for time at liberty where release was error)
- Commonwealth v. Kriston, 588 A.2d 898 (Pa.) (manifest injustice and equitable credit where prisoner reasonably relied on authorities’ assurances)
- Koehler v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 935 A.2d 44 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (DOC/PBPP obligation to implement court-imposed sentences)