Smith, D. v. PA Board of Probation & Parole, Aplt.
171 A.3d 759
Pa.2017Background
- Derek Smith was sentenced in 1998 to 10–20 years (max date Dec. 31, 2020), released on parole in 2011, then arrested on federal robbery charges in North Carolina in Jan. 2013 and held without bail.
- The Pennsylvania Board lodged a parole detainer; Smith was held on both the federal detainer and the Board’s detainer for a period, later transferred to Pennsylvania and ultimately pled guilty in federal court and received a 246‑month federal sentence.
- The Board initially awarded 93 days credit for time held solely on its detainer, but refused to credit the period he was detained on both federal and Board detainers to his state sentence, applying that time to the federal sentence under Gaito.
- Smith administratively and judicially challenged the allocation; the Commonwealth Court reversed, relying on Baasit and Martin and on Section 6138(a)(5.1) and the primary‑jurisdiction doctrine to direct credit to the state sentence.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Commonwealth Court, holding Gaito governs allocation except for the limited Martin exception when the new sentence is shorter than pre‑sentence confinement; it rejected the Commonwealth Court’s readings of Section 6138(a)(5.1) and the primary‑jurisdiction doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper allocation of pre‑sentence confinement credit when detainee is held on both Board and federal detainers | Credit should be applied to the original state sentence because Pennsylvania detained first; Section 6138(a)(5.1) and primary‑jurisdiction principles support allocation to state time | Gaito controls: time detained on both detainers must be credited to the new (federal) sentence unless the Martin exception applies; §6138(a)(5.1) governs order of service, not credit allocation | Gaito remains controlling; credit for time on both detainers is applied to the new (federal) sentence unless the new sentence is shorter than the detention period (Martin exception) |
| Effect of 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5.1) on credit allocation | §6138(a)(5.1) (state back time served before federal term) means credit should be applied to state sentence | §6138(a)(5.1) prescribes order of serving sentences, not how pre‑sentence credit is allocated; it does not overrule Gaito | §6138(a)(5.1) does not change Gaito’s allocation rule; it governs service ordering only |
| Role of primary‑jurisdiction doctrine in credit allocation | Sovereign that first arrests (Pennsylvania) has primary jurisdiction; credit should go to state sentence | Primary‑jurisdiction addresses which sovereign has jurisdiction first, not how to allocate credit between sentences | Primary‑jurisdiction is inapposite to allocation question and does not compel state allocation of credit |
| Scope of Martin decision: did it broadly displace Gaito? | Martin permits discretionary, equitable allocation and undermines Gaito’s bright‑line rule | Martin is limited: exception applies only where the new sentence is shorter than pre‑sentence confinement so that otherwise "dead time" would result | Martin is a limited exception; Gaito remains the general rule for allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) (establishes bright‑line rule: time held on both Board detainer and new‑charge detention is credited to the new sentence unless detainee was held solely on Board detainer)
- Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (limits Gaito: permits awarding credit to original sentence when new sentence is shorter than pre‑sentence confinement to avoid "dead time")
- Baasit v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 90 A.3d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (Commonwealth Court decision applying Martin and §6138(a)(5.1) to allocate credit to state sentence; expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court)
- Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (applies Martin narrowly: credit to original sentence only when pre‑sentence confinement exceeds new sentence)
- McCray v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (distinguishes sentencing‑court credit issues from Board allocation authority)