W. Winston v. Com. of PA, PBPP
576 M.D. 2020
Pa. Commw. Ct.Dec 2, 2021Background
- William Winston, pro se, petitioned for mandamus seeking action on a July 2019 parole request; he has served a life sentence for second-degree murder since 1975.
- Winston argued his mandatory life sentence is illegal or not necessarily life-without-parole and that the Board failed to act within six months.
- The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole filed preliminary objections asserting lack of jurisdiction, improper service, failure to state a claim, and that the Board is not a proper party; it relied on statutory prohibition against parole for life-term inmates.
- The Court reviewed controlling precedent that mandatory life for second-degree murder requires total confinement for life and that the Board lacks authority to parole such inmates.
- The Court held parole is discretionary (a matter of grace), mandamus requires a clear right and a ministerial duty, and Winston lacked both; the Court sustained the Board’s preliminary objections and dismissed the petition on December 2, 2021.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction – scope of this Court | Winston: Challenge to sentence/parole eligibility is not habeas/post-conviction; Court has jurisdiction. | Board: Challenge is effectively habeas/post-conviction; Judicial Code excludes such matters. | Court: Lack of jurisdiction to grant collateral habeas/post-conviction relief here. |
| Board authority to parole life-term offenders | Winston: Statute does not expressly list second-degree murder as parole-ineligible, so parole may be available. | Board: Statute and precedent (including Hudson) preclude parole for mandatory life sentences. | Court: Hudson controls; Board lacks authority to parole those serving mandatory life for second-degree murder. |
| Availability of mandamus relief | Winston: Board failed to act; mandamus can compel action. | Board: Parole is discretionary; no clear legal right or ministerial duty to compel. | Court: Mandamus unavailable—no clear right and no ministerial duty. |
| Proper party / service | Winston: Service defects cured; Board should act on parole request. | Board: Even if served, it is not a proper party because it cannot grant the relief sought. | Court: Service objection moot, but Board is not proper party for the requested relief; petition dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 204 A.3d 392 (Pa. 2019) (mandatory life for second-degree murder precludes parole; Board lacks authority)
- Commonwealth v. Brenizer, 384 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 1978) (no statutory authorization to parole mandatory life-term inmates)
- Rogers v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 724 A.2d 319 (Pa. 1999) (parole is a matter of grace, not a right)
- Key v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 185 A.3d 421 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections; accept well-pled facts)
- Allen v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 103 A.3d 365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (mandamus requires a ministerial duty and clear legal right)