Stodghill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
123 A.3d 798
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Petitioner David M. Stodghill is serving a 4–8 year sentence for aggravated indecent assault of a 12-year-old; his minimum sentence expired in Feb. 2014.
- Section 9718.1 requires incarcerated offenders convicted of sexual offenses involving minors to attend and participate in a DOC sex-offender counseling/therapy program as a condition of parole eligibility.
- Stodghill admits the statute applies but contends he did "participate" and thus is eligible; the Board says his participation was insufficient.
- A DOC evaluation attached to the petition states Stodghill attended 15 of 120 sessions, participated unsatisfactorily, failed assignments, and was disruptive.
- Stodghill sought mandamus relief (petition for review and motion for judgment on the pleadings) to compel the Board to consider him for parole or release.
- The Court treated the matter as mandamus review and limited its consideration to the pleadings and attachments; it denied the motion because Stodghill failed to show a clear legal right to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 9718.1 requires only "participation" (regardless of quality or completion) to be eligible for parole | Stodghill: statute requires only participation, not completion or successful participation | Board: statute requires meaningful/successful participation; attendance shown was inadequate | Court: "participation" requires successful/meaningful participation; minimal or unsatisfactory attendance does not satisfy the statute |
| Whether petitioner has a clear legal right to mandamus relief compelling parole consideration | Stodghill: his attendance satisfies the statute so he has a right to parole review | Board: petitioner has no clear right because participation was unsatisfactory; administrative discretion and public-protection purpose support denial | Court: No clear legal right shown; mandamus denied |
| Whether documentation attached to pleadings can be considered on judgment on the pleadings | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Court: Allowed consideration of pleadings and attached DOC evaluation; factual record showed insufficient participation |
| Whether denial of parole for failure to successfully complete treatment is permissible | Stodghill: disputes some factual findings; argues statutory text favors him | Board: denial for failure to complete or to participate satisfactorily is consistent with rehabilitative/public-safety aims and precedent | Court: Affirmed that denying parole for unsuccessful participation is a valid exercise aligned with legislative intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Joyce, 571 A.2d 536 (court may consider pleadings and properly attached documents in judgment-on-the-pleadings) (Pa. Cmwlth.)
- Casner v. Am. Fed. of State, County & Mun. Employees, 658 A.2d 865 (standard for granting judgment on the pleadings) (Pa. Cmwlth.)
- Kelly v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 686 A.2d 883 (mandamus requires clear legal right, corresponding duty, and lack of alternative remedy) (Pa. Cmwlth.)
- Evans v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 820 A.2d 904 (statute's public-protection purpose permits requiring successful participation in sex-offender programs for parole eligibility) (Pa. Cmwlth.)
- Wilson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 942 A.2d 270 (requiring completion of programming that may require admission of guilt is permissible) (Pa. Cmwlth.)
- Weaver v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 688 A.2d 766 (failure to successfully complete treatment program is a valid reason to deny parole) (Pa. Cmwlth.)