Young v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 189 A.3d 16

Otto Young was recommitted as a convicted parole violator in 2013; the Parole Board granted him 1,918 days of credit for street time and he was reparoled in Feb. 2014.
In 2014 Young was arrested, later convicted of burglary, and in Nov. 2015 the Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator.
At the 2015 recommitment the Parole Board withdrew the 1,918 days of credit it had awarded in 2013, producing a later maximum release date.
Young administratively appealed; the Board denied relief and Young petitioned this Court for review.
The narrow legal question: whether the Parole Board has statutory authority to revoke sentence credit it previously granted under 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Young)	Defendant's Argument (Parole Board)	Held
Whether the Parole Board may revoke previously awarded street-time credit after a later recommitment	Once the Board awarded credit in 2013 those days were applied and cannot be revoked; §6138(a)(2.1) gives no authorization to rescind prior awards	The Board may withdraw previously awarded credit to effectuate the Parole Code’s purpose and to treat convicted recommitments as forfeitures of street time	Reverse — Board lacked statutory authority to revoke credit previously awarded; credit once applied cannot later be withdrawn
Whether Section 6138(a)(2.1) requires the Board to make a definite decision on credit at recommitment and thus precludes later rescission	Award of credit is an affirmative act that eliminates street time; the Board must decide at recommitment and cannot place awarded credit ‘in escrow’ for later forfeiture	The Board’s broader statutory purpose allows recalculation and revocation on subsequent violations	Court held the statute does not authorize an escrow or later forfeiture of already-awarded credit; the Board must act at recomitment and cannot later undo an award

Pittman v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017) (Board must explain reasons when it denies credit under §6138(a)(2.1))
Houser v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 682 A.2d 1356 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (prior precedent on forfeiture under former Parole Act; relied on by Board but decided under repealed statute)
Morris v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 465 A.2d 97 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (interpretation under former Parole Act that prior parole time could be forfeited on later recommitment)
Anderson v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 472 A.2d 1168 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (former-act precedent treating "period of parole" as including all prior parole time)
Richards v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 20 A.3d 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (discussing effect of codification and treatment of street time)
Melendez v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 944 A.2d 824 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (clarifying forfeiture rules under prior statutory scheme)
Martin v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) (rejection of the concept of a penal "checking account" for excess pre-sentence incarceration)
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Commonwealth, 638 A.2d 194 (Pa. 1994) (administrative agencies may exercise only powers clearly conferred by statute)