Y. Whitehead v. PA DOC ( 2023 )

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Yusef Whitehead, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Department :
of Corrections, : No. 747 M.D. 2018
Respondent : Submitted: December 9, 2022
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: May 23, 2023
Before the Court is “Respondent’s Preliminary Objection to Petition for
Review” (Preliminary Objection) filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Corrections (Department) on January 3, 2019, in response to pro se
petitioner Yusef Whitehead’s (Whitehead) “Petition for Review (In the Nature of a
Complaint in Mandamus)” (Petition). Whitehead challenges the calculated
maximum dates and credits for time served of his prison sentences. For the reasons
that follow, we sustain the Preliminary Objection.
Whitehead is an individual incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Mahanoy. See Preliminary Objection at 1. On May 19 and 20, 1998,
Whitehead pleaded guilty and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 17½ to 35
years of incarceration for aggravated assault1 and rape2 (collectively, the Previous
Sentences). On October 15, 1998, while still a minor, Whitehead was sentenced for
murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and four related crimes (Docket No.
CP0501681).3 Whitehead received a mandatory life sentence without the possibility
of parole on the murder conviction (Murder Sentence), as well as 5- to 10-year
sentences on the conspiracy to commit murder and each of the four related crimes
(Murder-related Sentences). The sentencing court ordered the Murder Sentence and
the Murder-related Sentences to be served concurrently to one another but
consecutively to the Previous Sentences, with the exception of Count 12 of the
Murder-related Sentences, a conspiracy conviction (Conspiracy Conviction), which
was to be served concurrently with the Previous Sentences. Following a successful
Post Conviction Relief Act4 petition that resulted in the Murder Sentence being
vacated,5 on August 28, 2018, Whitehead was resentenced on the murder conviction
to a term of incarceration of 50 years to life (New Murder Sentence), again to be
served concurrently with the Murder-related Sentences, and consecutively to the
Previous Sentences, again with the exception of the Conspiracy Conviction, which
was to be served concurrently with the Previous Sentences.
1
Docket No. CP0708691.
2
Docket No. CP 0211571.
3
Kidnapping, rape, robbery, and robbery of a motor vehicle. See Docket No. CP0501681.
4
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
5
Whitehead based his Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition on Miller v. Alabama,
567 U.S. 460 (2012), in which the United States Supreme Court determined that mandatory life
without parole sentences for juvenile homicide convictions violated the Eighth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. VIII, and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190(2016), which determined that Miller applies retroactively. See Petition at 2. The Commonwealth
did not oppose Whitehead’s PCRA petition. See id.2
On November 21, 2018, Whitehead filed the Petition, in which he
claims that the Department failed to properly calculate and attribute credit for time
served on his sentences to which he is entitled. See Petition at 3-4. Specifically,
Whitehead claims that he is entitled to, but did not receive, credit on the New Murder
Sentence for time served from his March 27, 1997 arrest in that matter through the
date of his resentencing. See Petition at 3. His prayer for relief asks this Court to
“[e]nter judgment against the [Department] commanding it to abide by the
sentencing court’s order on the [Previous S]entences and award proper credit[.]”
Petition at 5.
The Department filed the Preliminary Objection on January 3, 2019.
The Preliminary Objection demurs to the claims of the Petition, arguing that the
Department properly applied applicable credits to Whitehead’s sentences, and
further arguing that Whitehead has failed to establish a duty of the Department that
would substantiate Whitehead’s requested mandamus relief. See generally
Preliminary Objection.
Initially, we note that:
[i]n ruling on preliminary objections, we must accept as
true all well-pleaded material allegations in the petition for
review, as well as all inferences reasonably deduced
therefrom. The Court need not accept as true conclusions
of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative
allegations, or expressions of opinion. In order to sustain
preliminary objections, it must appear with certainty that
the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be
resolved by a refusal to sustain them.
A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits
every well-pleaded fact in the complaint and all inferences
reasonably deducible therefrom. It tests the legal
sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be
3
sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed
to state a claim for which relief can be granted. When
ruling on a demurrer, a court must confine its analysis to
the complaint.
Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
The petition here is in the nature of mandamus, which seeks to compel
the performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty. See Savage v. Storm, 257
A.3d 187, 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). As this Court has explained:
To prevail in mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate (1)
a clear legal right to relief, (2) a corresponding duty in the
respondent, and (3) there are no other adequate and
appropriate remedies at law. A mandatory duty is one
which a public officer is required to perform upon a given
state of facts and in a prescribed manner in obedience to
the mandate of legal authority. Mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy and may not be used
to establish legal rights.
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[A] writ of mandamus may be
used to compel the Department [] to compute a prisoner’s sentence properly.”
Saunders v. Dep’t of Corr., 749 A.2d 553, 556 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). However, “this
Court[] lacks the authority to compel an illegal act.” Detar v. Beard, 898 A.2d 26,
29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (quoting Doxsey v. Commonwealth, 674 A.2d 1173, 1175
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1996)). Additionally, the Crimes Code6 does not entitle individuals to
double credit for time served. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760.
Under these standards and the facts of this case, Whitehead’s
mandamus request must fail because he has not demonstrated a clear right to relief.
6
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-9546.
4
The Department’s “DC-16E Sentence Status Summary” (Sentence Summary)
pertaining to Whitehead’s convictions and sentences7 reveals that Whitehead was
already serving an aggregate sentence of 17½ to 35 years’ incarceration on the
Previous Sentences on October 15, 1998, the date upon which he originally received
the Murder Sentence of life without the possibility of parole, which was ordered to
be served consecutively to the Previous Sentences. See Sentence Summary at 1-3.
As a result of the consecutive nature of the sentences, the Department applied the
time Whitehead served prior to sentencing for the Murder Sentence toward the
Previous Sentences.8 See id. Thereafter, on August 28, 2018, Whitehead received
the New Murder Sentence of 50 years to life, again to be served concurrently with
the Murder-related Sentences and consecutive to the Previous Sentences.9 See id.
Based on this sentencing structure, Whitehead was not entitled to receive credit on
the New Murder Sentence until the expiration of the Previous Sentences, which have
not yet expired.10 See id. at 3. Only once the expiration of the Previous Sentence
occurs will Whitehead begin serving the 50 years to life Murder Sentence. See id.
Therefore, Whitehead is not entitled to credit on the New Murder Sentence from
March 27, 1997, as he suggests. The Department is therefore already abiding by the
7
Whitehead attached partial copies of the Sentence Summary as Exhibits A and B to the
Petition. See Petition Exhibits A & B. The Commonwealth attached a complete copy of the
current Sentence Summary to the Preliminary Objection. See Preliminary Objection Exhibit A.
8
Whitehead also received credit for this time on the Conspiracy Conviction, which the
sentencing court had ordered to be served concurrently with the Previous Sentences. See Sentence
Summary at 1-3.
9
At the resentencing, the Conspiracy Conviction was ordered to be served concurrently
with the Previous Sentences. See Sentence Summary at 2-3. Therefore, this sentence was properly
identified as an “overlapping concurrent” sentence with the Previous Sentences for aggregation
purposes. See id.
10
The Previous Sentences are not set to expire until April 24, 2032. See Sentence Summary
at 3.
5
sentencing court’s ordered sentences and has correctly applied credits for time
served to the sentences. Accordingly, Whitehead cannot demonstrate a clear legal
right to the mandamus relief he requests.
For these reasons, we sustain the Preliminary Objection and dismiss the
Petition with prejudice.
__________________________________
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
6
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Yusef Whitehead, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Department :
of Corrections, : No. 747 M.D. 2018
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2023, “Respondent’s Preliminary
Objection to Petition for Review” filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Corrections on January 3, 2019, is SUSTAINED, and pro se
Petitioner Yusef Whitehead’s “Petition for Review (In the Nature of a Complaint in
Mandamus)” is DISMISSED with prejudice.
__________________________________
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge