Staton v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
171 A.3d 363
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Staton was sentenced Nov. 9, 2009 to 3–6 years; original minimum Mar. 24, 2012 and maximum Mar. 24, 2015.
- He was paroled Mar. 28, 2012 and arrested Nov. 20, 2014 for PWID; convicted and sentenced Feb. 20, 2015 to 1–2 years (consecutive probation).
- Staton admitted parole violation; Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator and recalculated his maximum by denying credit for street time.
- Board’s recalculation: owed 1,091 days backtime, credited 70 days pre-recommitment, leaving 1,021 days; recommitment effective May 29, 2015 produced a new maximum of Mar. 5, 2018.
- Staton challenged the recalculation administratively and by petition, arguing the Board unlawfully extended his maximum, breached his plea ‘contract,’ and violated double jeopardy/cruel & unusual clauses.
- Appointed counsel sought to withdraw under Turner/Finley; the court found counsel’s no-merit letter sufficient and proceeded to an independent merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Staton’s Argument | Board’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board unlawfully extended Staton’s maximum sentence by adding backtime | Board’s recalculation added ‘extra’ time beyond his judicial maximum | Board had statutory authority to forfeit street time under 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a) and thus properly recalculated maximum | Held for Board: recalculation lawful; no extra time added — street time may be forfeited |
| Whether Board breached plea agreement/contract by altering sentence | Board’s action unilaterally breached the plea contract with the court | The plea contract is between defendant and Commonwealth; Board has no contractual duty and Staton still received plea benefit | Held for Board: breach claim fails |
| Whether recalculation violated Double Jeopardy or Cruel & Unusual Punishment Clauses | Recalculation increased punishment in violation of constitutional protections | Recalculation followed statutory authority and did not increase the original sentence beyond lawful effect of forfeited street time | Held for Board: constitutional claims meritless |
| Whether counsel complied with Turner/Finley technical requirements to withdraw | (N/A — issue is adequacy of counsel’s no-merit submission) | Counsel submitted a no-merit letter, served Staton, and advised of rights | Held: counsel satisfied Turner/Finley requirements; withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (Turner/Finley withdrawal technical requirements)
- Wrecks v. Commonwealth, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural standards for counsel withdrawal)
- Hughes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 977 A.2d 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (appellate independent review where no-merit letter adequate)
- Dorsey v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 854 A.2d 994 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (definition and treatment of ‘street time’ and parole credit)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184 (Pa. Super. 2010) (plea agreements analyzed under contract principles)
- Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (plea agreements are contractual and interpreted under contract law)
- Pennsylvania v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural framework for no-merit letters)
- Finley v. Georgia, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (framework for counsel withdrawal when constitutional right to counsel not implicated)