R. Hughes v. PA BPP
2056 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Ronald Hughes was convicted of robbery in 2006 (5–10 years) and paroled in April 2012; his original maximum date was December 20, 2015.
- Hughes incurred multiple parole detainers and violations (drug-related and technical), pled/admited at various points, and spent intervals in specialized community corrections centers and on home plans.
- In March 2015 the Board recommitted Hughes as a convicted parole violator for 12 months backtime and recalculated his parole-violation maximum to January 21, 2018.
- Hughes sought administrative relief (denied) and filed a pro se petition for review to this Court; the Public Defender was appointed and filed a petition to withdraw with an Anders brief.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed the appointed counsel’s withdrawal request and Anders brief and found the brief procedurally adequate but substantively deficient for failing to address multiple issues Hughes raised.
- The Court denied counsel’s petition to withdraw without prejudice and gave 30 days to file a renewed petition with an amended Anders/no‑merit letter or a merits brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board lacked authority to recalculate max date by removing street time | Hughes: Board cannot alter judicially imposed sentence; removing street time was unlawful | Board: Recalculation proper; exercised discretion under applicable parole statutes | Court: Counsel failed to adequately analyze; issue requires fuller briefing (withdrawal denied) |
| Whether statutory change (Section 6138(a)(2.1)) permitting credit for parole time applies | Hughes: May be entitled to credit under the newer statutory regime | Board/Counsel: Pre‑Act law governs because of timing of revocation, so no credit | Court: Counsel did not address Supreme Court’s allowance of appeal in Pittman or effect on this case; inadequate treatment requires further briefing |
| Whether time in specialized community corrections center (Apr–Jun 2012) counts as incarceration/entitles Hughes to credit | Hughes: That period was “restricted liberty”/confined and should be credited | Board: Did not credit that time; treated it as parole-related supervision | Court: Record shows Hughes raised this claim; counsel failed to analyze it adequately |
| Whether Board improperly recommitted Hughes to serve more than the unexpired term (aggregate time issue) | Hughes: Recommitment exceeds remaining balance of unexpired term | Board: Recommitment and recalculation lawful under Board practice/statute | Court: Counsel failed to address aggregate‑time authorities (Merritt, Davenport); issue not ruled on and needs briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 827 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (procedural requirements for appointed counsel withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
- Encarnacion v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 990 A.2d 123 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (content required in no‑merit letter/brief)
- Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 574 A.2d 558 (Pa.) (definition of frivolous appeals)
- McCauley v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 510 A.2d 877 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Board cannot alter judicially imposed sentence)
- Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 131 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (treatment of credit for time at liberty on parole; appeal allowed by Pa. Supreme Court)
- Merritt v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 574 A.2d 597 (Pa.) (aggregate time/recommitment principles)
- Davenport v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 656 A.2d 581 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (aggregate‑time/recommitment analysis)
- Seilhamer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 996 A.2d 40 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (no‑merit letter must include substantial reasons to conclude claims lack merit)