S. Williams v. PA BPP
181 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 16, 2016Background
- Williams was convicted of drug offenses and received a 3–6 year sentence with minimum release 9/3/2012 and maximum 9/3/2015; he was paroled 4/4/2011 after signing parole conditions that stated a conviction while on parole could result in recommitment with no credit for street time.
- Arrested 9/9/2014 on new drug-related charges; received credit on the new county sentence for custody from 9/10/2014 to 4/16/2015 and pled guilty to multiple state charges on 4/16/2015 (sentenced 2–5 years).
- Waived parole revocation hearing on 7/27/2015; on 8/20/2015 the Parole Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator for 24 months backtime and denied credit for time at liberty on parole ("street time").
- Williams administratively appealed, arguing the Board failed to explain denial of street-time credit, erred in recalculating his maximum sentence date, and lacked authority to extend the maximum date; the Board affirmed.
- Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the Board’s action was supported by law and substantial evidence and whether any legal error occurred, and affirmed the Board’s recommitment and recalculation of the maximum date to 9/15/2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Parole Board must explain denial of credit for time at liberty on parole | Williams: Board abused discretion by simply checking “No” without explaining why it denied street-time credit under 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2.1) | Board: §6138(a)(2.1) vests discretionary authority to award credit and no statutory standards require an explanation; checking the box shows exercise of discretion | Court: Affirmed — no explanatory rationale required; checking "No" suffices (following Pittman) |
| Whether a non-excluded new conviction requires the Board to award street-time credit | Williams: Because his new conviction isn’t a listed exclusion (violent or sex-offense), the Board should have awarded credit and not extended his max date | Board: §6138(a)(2.1) is discretionary except for statutory exclusions; non-excluded offenses do not mandate credit, and Williams’s signed parole conditions also warned of no credit if convicted while on parole | Court: Affirmed — Board not required to award credit for non-excluded offenses; discretion remains with Board |
| Whether the Parole Board may alter a judicially imposed maximum sentence date when recommitting a convicted parole violator | Williams: Board lacks authority to extend judicial maximum | Board: Prevailing precedent permits recommitment to serve remaining balance if the new crime occurred before original maximum expiration | Court: Affirmed — Board may recommit to serve balance when new crime committed before original max; recalculation to 9/15/2019 lawful (citing Knisley) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 131 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (interpreting §6138(a)(2.1) discretion and holding no statutory requirement for explanatory reasons when denying street-time credit)
- Knisley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 362 A.2d 1146 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (Parole Board may recommit a convicted parole violator to serve the balance of the court-imposed maximum if the new crime was committed before expiration of the original maximum)