L. Rawls v. PBPP ( 2019 )

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Lenton Rawls, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Board of :
Probation and Parole, : No. 840 C.D. 2018
Respondent : Submitted: January 11, 2019
BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY FILED: February 22, 2019
Lenton Rawls (Rawls) petitions this Court for review of the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s (Board) May 22, 2018 decision
denying his request for administrative relief. Rawls presents one issue for this
Court’s review: whether the Board erred by not granting Rawls credit for the time he
was in custody from July 20, 2017 to October 2, 2017. After review, we affirm.
Rawls is currently an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution (SCI) at Somerset. On August 21, 2015, he was paroled from a 1 1/2 to 3-
year sentence for attempted burglary and attempted criminal trespass (Original
Sentence). Rawls’ Original Sentence maximum release date was May 27, 2017.
Before his release on parole, Rawls agreed to conditions governing his parole,
including:
If you are arrested on new criminal charges, the Board has
the authority to lodge a detainer against you which will
prevent your release from custody, pending disposition of
those charges, even though you may have posted bail or
been released on your own recognizance from those
charges.
If you violate a condition of your parole/reparole and, after
the appropriate hearing(s), the Board decides that you are in
violation of a condition of your parole/reparole you may be
recommitted to prison for such time as may be specified by
the Board.
If you are convicted of a crime committed while on
parole/reparole, the Board has the authority, after an
appropriate hearing, to recommit you to serve the balance of
the sentence or sentences which you were serving when
paroled/reparoled, with no credit for time at liberty on
parole.
Certified Record (C.R.) at 7. Rawls did not object to the above-quoted parole
conditions.
On February 25, 2017, Philadelphia police arrested Rawls for burglary,
criminal trespass and related charges. On February 26, 2017, the Board lodged a
detainer to commit and detain Rawls. On June 15, 2017, the Board cancelled the
detainer. On July 17, 2017, Rawls pled guilty to burglary and was sentenced to 2 to 4
years of incarceration. On July 19, 2017, the Board lodged a detainer to commit and
detain Rawls. On July 20, 2017, Rawls was returned to SCI-Graterford. On
September 7, 2017, Rawls signed a waiver of his rights to a revocation hearing and
counsel.
On October 2, 2017, the second panel member voted to accept Rawls’
hearing waiver, recommit Rawls as a convicted parole violator (CPV), and deny him
credit for time spent at liberty on parole.1 See C.R. at 39. By decision recorded
January 16, 2018 (mailed January 30, 2018), the Board formally recommitted Rawls
Section 6113(b) of the Prisons and Parole Code states, in relevant part: “The [B]oard may
1
make decisions on . . . revocation in panels of two persons. A panel shall consist of one board
member and one hearing examiner or of two board members.” 61 Pa.C.S. § 6113(b).
2
as a CPV to serve his unexpired term of 1 year, 5 months and 28 days. By January
16, 2018 recommitment order, the Board recalculated Rawls’ Original Sentence
maximum release date to March 31, 2019. See C.R. at 54.
On February 5, 2018, Rawls submitted an Administrative Remedies
Form challenging the Board’s decision recorded January 16, 2018 (mailed January
30, 2018), which formally recommitted Rawls as a CPV. On May 22, 2018, the
Board denied Rawls’ request for administrative relief. Rawls appealed to this Court.2
Rawls argues that the Board erred by not giving him credit on his
Original Sentence from July 20, 2017 to October 2, 2017. Specifically, Rawls asserts
that because he was returned to SCI-Graterford on July 20, 2017, any time after that
date should be credited to his Original Sentence.
This Court recognizes that Section 6138(a)(4) of the Prisons and Parole
Code (Parole Code) provides: “The period of time for which the parole violator is
required to serve shall be computed from and begin on the date that the parole
violator is taken into custody to be returned to the institution as a parole violator[,]”
61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(4), and “[CPVs] must serve the backtime on their original state
sentence before they can begin to serve time on their newly-imposed state sentence
under Section 6138(a) of the Code.” Wilson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 124 A.3d
767, 769 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).
However,
[u]nder Campbell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation [&]
Parole, . . . 409 A.2d 980 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1980) and Hill v.
Pennsylvania Board of Probation [&] Parole, 683 A.2d 699(Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), the general rule applied in calculations
of minimum and maximum release dates is that the Board
2
“Our scope of review of the Board’s decision denying administrative relief is limited to
determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, an error of
law was committed, or constitutional rights have been violated.” Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. &
Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
3
must credit time a parolee spent in custody between the
date of conviction for the new charge and the date the
Board recommits him as a direct violator . . . to the new
sentence.
Plummer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 926 A.2d 561, 563 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)
(emphasis added); Wilson.
Here, Rawls pled guilty and was sentenced on the new charges on July
17, 2017, and the Board recommitted him as a CPV on October 2, 2017.3 See C.R. at
39. Thus, the time Rawls spent in custody from July 20, 2017 (the date he was
returned to SCI-Graterford) to October 2, 2017 “must” be credited to his new
sentence. Plummer, 926 A.2d at 563.
Moreover,
a parole violator’s new maximum date is calculated from
the date on which the Board obtained the second signature
needed to recommit him as a CPV. Wilson (citing
Campbell . . . ). Here, the Board’s hearing report indicates
the hearing examiner obtained a second signature for
[Rawls’] recommitment on [October 2, 2017]. C.R. at [39].
As such, [Rawls’] new maximum expiry must be calculated
from that date. Wilson; Campbell.
Palmer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 134 A.3d 160, 166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).
Accordingly, the Board properly denied Rawls credit on his Original Sentence for the
time he was in custody from July 20, 2017 to October 2, 2017.
For all of the above reasons, the Board’s decision is affirmed.
___________________________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
3
The second panel member voted to recommit Rawls as a CPV on October 2, 2017. See
C.R. at 39.
4
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Lenton Rawls, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Board of :
Probation and Parole, : No. 840 C.D. 2018
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2019, the Pennsylvania Board of
Probation and Parole’s May 22, 2018 decision is affirmed.
___________________________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge