Rodriques v. CommonwealthRodriques v. Commonwealth
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Disalle
Opinion by
Judge DiSalle,This is a Petition for Review challenging the action of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) in recomputing the sentence of Pеdro J. Rodriques (Petitioner), a convicted parole violator. The Bоard has filed preliminary objections seeking to have the petition dismissеd.
On October 24, 1974, the Honorable William W. Caldwell of Dauphin County sentenced Pеtitioner to a term of indeterminate to six years for the offense
In recomputing his original sentence, the Board disallowed Petitioner credit for time spent on parole and extended thе maximum expiration date from August 20, 1980 to January 13, 1982, an increase of almost оne and one-half years. We have held that in recomputing a convicted parole violator’s sentence, the Board may constitutionаlly deny him credit for time spent on parole. Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 268, 370 A.2d 813 (1977); Kuykendall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 234, 363 A.2d 866 (1976). Accordingly, the denial here was proper. However, in extending the expiration date of Petitiоner’s original sentence nearly one and one-half years, when Petitioner spent less than one year on parole (from March 18, 1976 to December 22, 1976), the Board obviously erred, and must amend its records to reflect that error.
The Board has also indicated that Petitioner is to serve the balance of his original term before beginning service on his new term. Petitionеr argues that since Judge Caldwell did not state otherwise,
Lastly, we note that the Board has expressed an intention to credit the time Pеtitioner spent in custody under its detainer warrant to the new sentence rаther than to the old one. We held in Mitchell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 243, 375 A.2d 902 (1977), that time spent in custody pursuant to a dеtainer warrant shall be credited to a convicted parole viоlator’s original term, rather than to his new term. We clarified that holding in Davis v. Cuyler, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 488, 394 A.2d 647 (1978), stating that such crediting would occur only when the parolee was eligible for and had satisfied bail requirements for the new offense and thus remained incarcеrated only by reason of the detainer warrant lodged against him.
Nothing in the rеcord indicates whether Petitioner satisfied the bail requirements for the new charges. If he did, credit must be applied to his original sentence. If he did nоt, the Board may properly apply it to his new sentence. We will direct that the Board submit an affidavit stating whether Petitioner satisfied the bail requirements for the offense for which he was arrested on December 22, 1976.
Order
And Now, this 6th day of July, 1979, the Preliminary Objections of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parоle to the Petition for Review of Pedro J.