216 A.3d 1207
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- Plummer was sentenced to 4–8 years for firearm possession, released on parole in July 2012, arrested twice thereafter on drug-related matters, and later sentenced on new drug convictions (30 months–5 years) with credit for time served.
- The Board recommitted Plummer as a convicted parole violator (CPV) and, in a May 2016 recommitment order (Recommitment Order I), did not explicitly state whether it forfeited or awarded street-time (time at liberty on parole) credit.
- Plummer administratively appealed; the Board affirmed denial/forfeiture of street time without stating a contemporaneous reason. Plummer petitioned this Court.
- This Court remanded for the Board to explain its reason for denying credit pursuant to Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole and to correct any recommitment order if needed.
- On remand the Board issued Recommitment Order II (June 2018) denying street-time credit and contemporaneously stating the reason: Plummer’s “prior history of supervision failures.” Plummer appealed again to this Court.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding the Board’s contemporaneous, brief statement supported by record evidence (supervision notes documenting poor adjustment and repeated supervision problems) satisfied Pittman, though the explanation was “just barely” sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board complied with Pittman by providing a contemporaneous reason when denying street-time credit | Plummer: Board failed to provide a contemporaneous Pittman reason in its May 2016 order and thus denial was deficient | Board: On remand it provided a contemporaneous reason in June 2018 (Recommitment Order II); earlier order predated Pittman | Held: Only Recommitment Order II is before the court; Board’s June 2018 contemporaneous statement satisfied Pittman |
| Whether the Board’s stated reason (“prior history of supervision failures”) was legally sufficient | Plummer: The record shows only false arrests, not supervision failures, so reason is inaccurate/insufficient | Board: The record contains supervision entries documenting poor adjustment, poor judgment, and repeated failures | Held: Sufficient—record supports the Board’s statement; explanation adequate though minimal |
| Whether appellate review is possible given brevity of the Board’s explanation | Plummer: Brief statement prevents meaningful review | Board: A short statement is permissible under Pittman and Marshall; only a reason is required | Held: Pittman permits short explanations; here statement permits review because it’s supported by the record |
| Whether Board must identify specific incidents that constitute supervision failures | Plummer: Board must identify specific acts to satisfy due process | Board: Pittman and Marshall do not require detailed narratives; one adequate reason is enough | Held: Not required; detail helpful but not mandated—Board’s general reason was adequate in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017) (Board must provide contemporaneous statement explaining denial of street-time credit)
- Marshall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 200 A.3d 643 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (Board’s statement need not be extensive; reasons must be accurate and related to parolee)
- Smoak v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 193 A.3d 1160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (brief reasons can be legally sufficient but may be “just barely” adequate)
- Dorsey v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 854 A.2d 994 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (definition and treatment of "street time")
- Jordan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 206 A.3d 655 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (standards of review for Board decisions)