T. Lampkin v. PBPP
639 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- Lampkin was sentenced in 2005 to 3–9 years; released on parole in 2009. While on parole he committed new crimes, pled guilty in 2015, and received a 2–4 year sentence.
- The Board lodged a detainer, took Lampkin into custody, and Lampkin waived a parole-revocation hearing and counsel and admitted he was a convicted parole violator (CPV).
- At the Board recommitment hearing the Board checked the form box denying credit for time spent at liberty on parole and ordered 24 months’ backtime, recalculating Lampkin’s maximum sentence date.
- Lampkin administratively appealed, arguing the Board abused its discretion by failing to state reasons for denying street-time credit, asserting a Fourteenth Amendment due-process right to reasons, and challenging the Board’s authority to alter his maximum date.
- The Board denied relief; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, relying principally on this court’s decision in Pittman that the Board is not required to state reasons when denying credit and that denial of credit does not violate separation-of-powers or due-process protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board abused discretion by not stating reasons when denying credit for time at liberty on parole | Lampkin: failure to state reasons is an abuse; Board must explain denial | Board: checking the denial box constitutes exercise of discretion; no statutory requirement to explain | Court: No abuse; Pittman controls — Board need not provide reasons |
| Whether due process requires a statement of reasons for denying street-time credit | Lampkin: Fourteenth Amendment entitles him to reasons | Board: No protected liberty or property interest in street-time credit; credit is discretionary under statute | Court: Due process does not require a statement; no protected interest in credit |
| Whether denial of credit improperly alters judicial sentence / violates separation of powers | Lampkin: Board usurped judicial sentencing by extending maximum date | Board: Denial of credit under statute is within Board authority and does not encroach on sentencing power | Court: Denial of credit is not a separation-of-powers violation; long-settled Board authority to revoke street time stands |
| Whether the Board had statutory authority to deny credit under section 6138(a)(2.1) | Lampkin: (implicit) statute should not be read to permit this outcome without explanation | Board: Statute permits the Board to award or deny credit in its discretion, subject to enumerated exceptions | Court: Statute grants Board discretion; Board properly applied section 6138(a)(2.1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 131 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Board not required to state reasons for denying CPV street-time credit)
- Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) (denial of credit for CPV does not offend separation of powers)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Ohodnicki v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole, 211 A.2d 433 (Pa. 1965) (Board’s denial of street-time credit for CPV upheld)
- Miller v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pavex, Inc.), 918 A.2d 809 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (framework for establishing a protected property interest)