T.A. Pickard v. PBPP
T.A. Pickard v. PBPP - 895 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Petitioner Timothy A. Pickard petitions for review of a Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole decision dated May 16, 2016.
- The Board declined to consider Pickard’s untimely administrative appeal challenging a revocation hearing and denied credit for time Ohio confinement in recalculating his maximum sentence date.
- Pickard previously was paroled from a 2009 sentence for theft-related offenses and released to an Ohio detainer; Ohio released him in 2011.
- In 2013–2015, Pickard accrued new criminal convictions and pled guilty to multiple offenses; the Board charged and held a revocation hearing in May 2015.
- The Board recommitted Pickard as a convicted parole violator based on the Beaver County Theft Case and Somerset County Bad Checks Case, and recalculated his maximum date to August 31, 2018.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s decisions, including the lack of credit for time spent incarcerated in Ohio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the revocation hearing for Beaver County and Somerset cases | Pickard contends the May 1, 2015 hearing was untimely | Board asserts the hearing complied with 37 Pa. Code § 71.4 | Hearing timely for those two cases; timeliness not dispositive due to untimely overall appeal |
| Timeliness of Pickard’s administrative appeal of the June 2, 2015 decision | Pickard seeks nunc pro tunc relief for untimely filing | Board correctly treated the filing as untimely | Administrative appeal of June 2, 2015 decision untimely; nunc pro tunc relief denied |
| Credit for time spent incarcerated in Ohio when recalculating maximum sentence | Ohio time should be credited against the original term | Credit not permitted under 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2) except as allowed | No credit; period in Ohio is constructive parole and not credited against the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- McCaskill v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 631 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (parole appeal timing is jurisdictional; delays may warrant nunc pro tunc relief only for fraud/administrative breakdown)
- Moore v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 503 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (parole revocation appeal time limits are strict and generally not extendable)
- Hines v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 420 A.2d 381 (Pa. 1980) (constructive parole concept; time on parole may not be credited when serving other confinement)
- Merritt v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 574 A.2d 597 (Pa. 1990) (constructive parole time not creditable against new sentence)