T. Scantling v. PA BPP
2701 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 3, 2017Background
- Scantling pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in 2009, sentenced to 4–10 years (maximum date initially Sept. 9, 2018) and was paroled Sept. 10, 2012.
- Recommitted as a technical parole violator in Dec. 2013, then re-paroled in Apr. 2014.
- Arrested Aug. 16, 2014 for DUI; pleaded guilty Nov. 13, 2014; served 72 hours in Feb. 2015 and was re-paroled.
- Board held a revocation hearing May 15, 2015; admitted Form 275C (Criminal Arrest and Disposition Report) but excluded a document-request form as hearsay; Aug. 14, 2015 decision recommitted Scantling as a convicted parole violator, imposed six months backtime, and changed his maximum date to Sept. 12, 2018.
- Scantling administratively challenged the hearing timeliness, hearsay reliance, and the recalculation/credit for time served; Board affirmed Dec. 7, 2015; Scantling petitioned for review.
- Appointed counsel sought to withdraw under the no-merit procedure; Court evaluated counsel’s amended no-merit letter under Zerby and granted withdrawal while affirming the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of revocation hearing | Hearing was untimely; Board missed 120-day requirement | Official verification occurred Apr. 27, 2015 (Form 275C); hearing May 15, 2015 was within 120 days | Hearing was timely; Form 275C established official verification |
| Admissibility / hearsay | Board relied impermissibly on hearsay documents | Form 275C is in Board files and admissible under official‑notice doctrine; Scantling admitted conviction | Admission of Form 275C proper; conviction sufficiently proved |
| Credit for time served / maximum sentence date | Board failed to credit Feb. 24–27, 2015 incarceration against original sentence | Parolee not entitled to credit for incarceration on new criminal charge when parole revoked and sentence recalculated | No entitlement to credit; three‑day extension to Sept. 12, 2018 valid |
| Counsel withdrawal / sufficiency of no‑merit letter | (implicit) Counsel’s motion should not be granted unless no‑merit letter adequate | Amended no‑merit letter complied with Zerby and Reavis requirements | Court granted counsel’s withdrawal and accepted the no‑merit letter |
Key Cases Cited
- Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (sets no‑merit letter content requirements for counsel withdrawal)
- Wiley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 967 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (admission of Form 275C can establish timeliness of revocation hearing)
- Taylor v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 569 A.2d 368 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (agency may take official notice of facts in its files over hearsay objection)
- Koehler v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 935 A.2d 44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (parolee not entitled to credit on original sentence for incarceration on new charges when parole is revoked and sentence recalculated)
- Reavis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 909 A.2d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawal/no‑merit submissions)