T.L. Anderson v. J. Talaber, Esq., and PA BPP
171 A.3d 355
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Terry Lee Anderson was paroled on December 3, 2012 with 1,371 days remaining on his sentence; arrested on new charges August 12, 2014 and later convicted in March 2015.
- Anderson waived a revocation hearing, was recommitted by the Board to serve 18 months backtime, and after completing a county sentence was taken into Board custody on July 14, 2016.
- The Board set a new parole-violation maximum date and denied credit for time Anderson spent at liberty on parole (“street time”), marking only the “No” box on its hearing form.
- Anderson administratively appealed (documents dated Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, 2016); the Board affirmed on Feb. 17, 2017, stating convicted parole violators get no street-time credit.
- Anderson petitioned for judicial review; the court considered whether the Board abused discretion and whether Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole governs.
- The court vacated the Board’s order and remanded for proceedings consistent with Pittman, finding the Board had discretion under 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1) and failed to provide a contemporaneous reason for denying street-time credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board properly refused street-time credit to a convicted parole violator | Anderson: Section 6138(a)(2.1) gives the Board discretion to award street-time credit and he was eligible because he was not convicted of an excluded offense | Board: Convicted parole violators forfeit street-time credit; Anderson waived issues by not raising them properly | Court: Board abused its discretion; Anderson was eligible for discretionary credit and Board erred in denying it without explanation |
| Whether the Board’s checking “No” on the hearing form satisfied the requirement to explain denial | Anderson: A contemporaneous statement of reasons is required for meaningful appellate review | Board: No statutory requirement to explain; form response sufficient | Court: Following Pittman, a contemporaneous statement explaining denial is required; checking a box is insufficient |
| Whether Anderson waived his Pittman argument by not phrasing it identically in later appeal papers | Anderson: his initial administrative appeal sufficiently raised entitlement to street-time credit | Board: Anderson failed to preserve the specific abuse-of-discretion argument | Held: Court found the initial appeal fairly encompassed the issue and was sufficient to preserve it |
| Whether Pittman should apply retroactively to Anderson’s case | Anderson: Pittman interprets the existing 2012 statute and should apply to cases pending on appeal | Board: Pittman should not be applied retroactively | Court: Pittman clarified existing statutory language (not a new rule) and therefore applies; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017) (Board must exercise discretion under §6138(a)(2.1) and supply contemporaneous reasons when denying street-time credit)
- In the Interest of L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (framework for whether a new rule of law should be applied retroactively)
- Walnut Street Associates, Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 20 A.3d 468 (Pa. 2011) (retroactivity and appellate application of new rules)
- Kendrick v. District Attorney of Philadelphia County, 916 A.2d 529 (Pa. 2007) (first-time statutory construction by the Supreme Court ordinarily clarifies law from enactment)
- Fiore v. White, 757 A.2d 842 (Pa. 2000) (same principle regarding statutory interpretation and non-creation of a new rule)