R. Disco v. PA BPP
1615 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- Richard Disco was sentenced in 1986 to an "Original Sentence" (4–15 years) with a maximum date initially 11/4/2001; he later received a resentencing in 2006 to a separate "Current Sentence."
- DOC and the Board repeatedly recalculated Disco’s credit and maximum date: the Board set a 5/14/2009 max date in early 2006, DOC recalculated later in 2006 leading the Board to set an 8/4/2006 max date (Board 2006 Decision), which Disco did not appeal and completed.
- In 2015 DOC again recalculated credits (reinstating previously removed duplicate credit), and the Board rescinded its 2006 Decision and reinstated the 5/14/2009 max date (Board 2015 Decision).
- Disco appealed the 2015 Decision, arguing the Board lacked authority to alter a sentence that had already expired and been fully served nearly ten years earlier, and that the Board failed to state whether he was required to serve any unexpired term.
- The Board dismissed Disco’s administrative appeal as untimely; on judicial review the Commonwealth Court considered the merits, including delay, due process, and whether the Board properly relied on DOC recalculations.
- The court concluded the record indicated Disco completed his Original Sentence on 8/4/2006, the Board offered no adequate reason for rescinding the 2006 Decision, and reversed the Board’s 2015 order.
Issues
| Issue | Disco's Argument | Board/DOC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board may alter a maximum sentence date nearly 10 years after the sentence expired | Board lacked authority; changing a completed sentence violates due process | Agencies may correct credit calculations and records even after delay | Reversed Board: no adequate basis shown to alter a fully served sentence in this record |
| Whether the Board’s 2015 decision adequately explained that Disco was required to serve any unexpired term | Board failed to specify that Disco must serve any unexpired term | Board relied on DOC recalculation and did not provide further explanation | Held for Disco: Board did not articulate a basis and due process requires explanation |
| Whether prior appellate decision (2006) moots current dispute | Prior opinion does not moot dispute because subsequent DOC/Board actions materially changed the record | Prior opinion should control | Court: prior opinion did not render case moot because 2006 recalculation and board rescission post-dated that opinion |
| Whether relief as to DOC calculations of the Current Sentence should be granted here | DOC’s Current Sentence adjustments derive from Board action; Disco seeks relief | Challenges to DOC calculations must be brought against DOC | Court limited relief to Board order; directed claims against DOC should be brought to DOC (Disco did not join DOC) |
Key Cases Cited
- Comrie v. Dep’t of Corr., 142 A.3d 995 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (agencies must faithfully implement court sentences)
- Forbes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 931 A.2d 88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (DOC may correct long‑standing aggregation/record errors even after delay)
- Oakman v. Dep’t of Corr., 903 A.2d 106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (DOC must apply credit per the sentencing order)
- Yates v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 48 A.3d 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (definition and nature of backtime/recommitment)
- Rivenbark v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 501 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1985) (recommitment is administrative and does not alter the original judicial sentence)
- Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017) (parolees are entitled to due process on appeal of Board decisions)