E. Dodd v. PBPP ( 2021 )

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Eric Dodd, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1065 C.D. 2020
: Submitted: April 16, 2021
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge
HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE CROMPTON FILED: July 16, 2021
Eric Dodd (Dodd) petitions this Court for review of an October 1, 2020
Order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (the Board) denying his administrative
appeal of the Board’s March 6, 2020 decision to revoke his parole and recommit him
to a state correctional institution (SCI) to serve 12 months’ backtime. Dodd is
represented by Michael Halkias, Esq. (Counsel)1 in this matter, but Counsel now
petitions this Court to withdraw his appearance on behalf of Dodd. Counsel submits
to this Court a no-merit letter,2 asserting that Dodd’s Petition for Review (Petition)
1
Per his no-merit letter to the Court, dated January 15, 2021, Counsel is the Chief Public
Defender of Cumberland County. Counsel’s No-Merit Letter, 01/15/2021.
2
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that in matters that are collateral to an
underlying criminal proceeding, such as parole matters, counsel seeking to withdraw from
lacks merit. Upon review, we grant Counsel’s Application to Withdraw as Counsel
(Application) and affirm the Board’s order.
I. Background
Dodd is an inmate currently incarcerated at SCI-Camp Hill. Petition
¶2. On April 16, 1984, Dodd was sentenced to a 15- to 30-year sentence on several
charges, including: two counts of robbery with serious bodily injury; two counts of
kidnapping; two counts of burglary; conspiracy to commit robbery with serious
bodily injury; false imprisonment; and conspiracy to commit burglary. Certified
Record (C.R.) at 1-8. Dodd’s original minimum and maximum sentence dates were
October 1, 1998, and October 1, 2013, respectively. Id. at 1.
During his most recent period of reparole, Dodd was released on April
12, 2017, after being recommitted as a technical parole violator (TPV). Id. at 9-12.
On April 11, 2017, prior to his release on parole, Dodd signed conditions governing
his parole, advising that
[i]f 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.
Id. at 13-15. Dodd did not raise any objections to the credit forfeiture provision at
the time of his parole. Id.
Dodd was released to an approved home plan at the Gaudenzia Sienna
House on April 12, 2017, at which time his original maximum sentence date was
representation of a client may file a “no-merit” letter that includes information describing the
extent and nature of the counsel’s review, listing the issues the client wants to raise, and informing
the court of the reasons why counsel believes the issues have no merit. Cmwlth. v. Turner, 544
A.2d 927, 928-29 (Pa. 1988).
2
October 18, 2020. Id. at 6-7, 12. On September 21, 2018, Dodd was declared
delinquent after leaving the approved home plan without permission and without
providing his whereabouts. Id. at 17-18, 22. He was subsequently arrested on
January 11, 2019, during a traffic stop. Id. at 27. The Board lodged its warrant to
commit and detain him on January 11, 2019, and provided Dodd with a notice of
TPV charges and the scheduling of a preliminary hearing for these charges on
January 15, 2019. Id. at 22. Dodd waived his right to a violation hearing on January
15, 2019, and admitted to violating conditions of his parole, including change of
residence without permission, use of drugs, and failure to comply with field-imposed
special conditions. Id. at 20-21.
Following the votes of the Board’s Hearing Examiner and Board
Member, in a decision mailed on February 26, 2019, the Board recommitted Dodd
as a TPV to serve six months’ backtime in an SCI/Contracted County Jail. Id. at 54-
56. Dodd was ordered to be automatically reparoled no later than July 11, 2019, and
as a result of his delinquency, his maximum sentence date was extended to February
7, 2021. Id. at 52, 54-56.
While serving his recommitment backtime, Dodd was arrested on
February 27, 2019, by the Lower Paxton Police Department for several charges
associated with an incident that occurred on November 27, 2018: robbery; retail
theft; and recklessly endangering another person. Id. at 32-39, 58-61. The Dauphin
County Court of Common Pleas set bail at $150,000 on February 27, 2019; however,
Dodd did not post bail. Id. at 100. A memo was sent by Dauphin County to the
Board on April 5, 2019, asking whether the Board wanted to detain Dodd pending
the disposition of his new criminal charges. Id. at 71. Utilizing its warrant to commit
and detain, previously issued on January 11, 2019, the Board members voted on
3
April 10, 2019, and April 12, 2019, to detain Dodd pending the disposition of his
new criminal charges. Id. at 71-72.
On November 20, 2019, Dodd was found guilty of retail theft and
recklessly endangering another person before the Dauphin County Court of
Common Pleas, which sentenced him to nine months to two years of confinement in
an SCI. Id. at 97-98, 101, 103. The Board provided Dodd with a notice of charges
and the scheduling of a parole revocation hearing on December 18, 2019, and on the
same day, he waived his right to a revocation hearing and to counsel and admitted
to his new convictions. Id. at 122-24. In a decision mailed on March 12, 2020, the
Board recommitted Dodd as a convicted parole violator (CPV) for 12 months as a
result of his most recent offenses. Id. at 137-38. Dodd was awarded credit for time
spent at liberty on parole, or “street time.” Id. at 125-32.
As a result of his recommitment as a CPV, Dodd’s maximum sentence
date was changed from October 18, 2020, to October 31, 2021. Id. at 135, 137-38.
The Board determined Dodd’s original sentence maximum date as follows. When
Dodd was paroled from his sentence on April 12, 2017, his original sentence
maximum date was October 18, 2020. Id. at 12. When he was paroled, Dodd owed
1,285 days toward his original sentence. However, the Board decided to award him
credit for his street time from April 12, 2017 (parole date), to September 21, 2018
(delinquency date). Id. at 135. Additionally, Dodd was awarded 47 days of
backtime served credit, i.e., the time that Dodd was held solely on the Board’s
warrant prior to the recommitment order, from January 11, 2019 (Board warrant
date), to February 27, 2019 (arrest date). Id. Thus, Dodd owed a total of 711 days
(1,285 days – 527 days – 47 days = 711 days). The Board used November 20, 2019,
the sentence date, as Dodd’s custody for return date. Adding 711 days to November
4
20, 2019, results in Dodd’s recalculated maximum sentence date of October 31,
2021. Id.
Dodd filed an Administrative Remedies Form with the Board, mailed
twice on March 20, 2020, and March 24, 2020, challenging the Board’s recalculation
of his maximum sentence date. Id. at 139-48. The Board responded to Dodd’s
challenge on October 1, 2020, explaining how Dodd’s maximum sentence date was
calculated, affirming the Board’s decision mailed to Dodd on March 12, 2020. Id.
at 157-58. Dodd now petitions this Court for review.3
Following the filing of Dodd’s Petition, Counsel filed his Application
with this Court on January 19, 2021. In a no-merit letter dated January 15, 2021,
Counsel explained to Dodd that no basis exists for his present appeal. This Court
issued an Order on January 19, 2021, stating that Counsel’s Application will be
considered along with Dodd’s Petition.
II. Discussion
A. Counsel’s No-Merit Letter
Our Supreme Court has held that in matters involving underlying
criminal proceedings, including parole calculation, as in the present case, counsel
may submit a “no-merit” letter detailing the nature and extent of his review and
listing each issue the petitioner wished to have raised, with counsel’s explanation of
why those issues are meritless. Turner, 544 A.2d at 928-29. On January 19, 2021,
Counsel filed his Application with this Court accompanied by the no-merit letter
addressed to Dodd and dated January 15, 2021. Counsel also filed a Certificate of
3
Our review of a Board decision is limited to determining whether necessary findings of
fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the
constitutional rights of the parolee were violated. Detar v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 890 A.2d
27 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
5
Service with the Court on January 21, 2021, indicating that the no-merit letter had
been sent to Dodd via first-class mail.4
In Counsel’s no-merit letter, Counsel concludes that there is no legal
basis for Dodd to challenge the determination of the Board recalculating his
maximum sentence date. Specifically, Counsel states that the Board did not err in
awarding Dodd 47 days of backtime because this properly accounts for the period
from January 11, 2019 to February 27, 2019, when Dodd was under presentence
confinement before his formal arrest on his Dauphin County charges. Thus, in
Counsel’s view, the Board appropriately recalculated Dodd’s maximum sentence
date.
Citing Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d
568, 571 (Pa. 1980), in his no-merit letter, Counsel explains that our Supreme Court
held that when a parolee is “in custody solely because of a detainer lodged by the
Board and has otherwise met the requirements for bail on the new criminal charges,
the time which he spent in custody shall be credited against his original sentence.”
However, the Gaito Court explained further that when “a defendant . . . remains
incarcerated prior to trial because he has failed to satisfy bail requirements on the
new criminal charges, then the time spent in custody shall be credited to his new
sentence.” Id. Thus, when a parolee is detained on both a detainer and new charges
but fails to post bail, only the new sentence is credited.
4
In Craig v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 502 A.2d 758 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1985), this Court established technical requirements that must be satisfied in order to successfully
withdraw as counsel. The withdrawing counsel must notify the parolee of counsel’s request to
withdraw, furnish the parolee a copy of a no-merit letter, and advise the parolee of his right to
retain new counsel, or raise any points he may deem worthy of consideration. Id. In the present
case, we determine Counsel satisfied these requirements. See Appl. to Withdraw as Counsel,
01/19/2021.
6
Counsel asserts that Gaito describes Dodd’s situation in relation to his
Dauphin County charges. Between the dates of Dodd’s arrest and sentencing on his
Dauphin County charges, Dodd was held on both the Board’s detainer and the
Dauphin County charges for which he did not meet the bail requirements. The Board
credited Dodd’s sentence with 47 days of backtime for the period when Dodd was
held solely on the Board’s detainer for his parole delinquency until his arrest on new
charges. As a result, Counsel contends that Dodd’s claims of miscalculation of his
new maximum sentence date by the Board are without merit.
In reviewing Counsel’s no-merit letter, he addresses Dodd’s issue
before this Court, namely a challenge to the Board’s calculation of his new
maximum sentence date, in full, with citation to legal authority. Within the letter,
Counsel also informs Dodd of his Application with this Court and of Dodd’s right
to retain new counsel and his ability to raise any new points before this Court that
he deems worthy of consideration. Therefore, in consideration of the requirements
to withdraw as counsel, as described by Turner and Craig, we determine that
Counsel has met his burden and grant his Application.
B. Dodd’s Petition
In his Petition, Dodd requests that this Court reverse the determination
of the Board denying his administrative appeal and grant him such relief as may be
proper under the circumstances. In support of his belief that the Board erred in
making its determination, Dodd states:
[Dodd] was detained on both a parole detainer and bail on his new
criminal case but did not receive credit based on his parole detainer and
as such his maximum date was erroneously calculated.
Petition ¶6.A. Dodd describes, in his brief to this Court in support of his Petition,
that “[he] has been in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
7
since his arrest on January 11, 2019, as a [TPV] and [CPV], with only partial credited
allocated incarcerated time from January 11, 2019 thru [sic] April 23, 2019.” Dodd’s
Br. at 8.
Upon evaluating Dodd’s filings with this Court, Dodd’s primary
complaint regarding the Board’s calculation of his new maximum sentence date is
tied to his arrest on February 27, 2019, for his Dauphin County charges while he was
serving his recommitment backtime as a TPV. Dodd believes that he should be
credited on his original sentence for the time he was held between his arrest and his
sentencing on his Dauphin County charges. While the Board credited Dodd’s
sentence for the 47-day period where he was being held solely on the Board’s
detainer, Dodd asserts that the entirety of his presentence incarceration should be
credited to his original sentence.
However, Dodd’s reasoning is in direct contradiction with our Supreme
Court’s holding in Gaito. “The general rule governing the allocation of credit for
time served awaiting disposition of new criminal charges was established by our
Supreme Court in Gaito.” Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348,
352 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). “If a defendant . . . remains incarcerated prior to trial
because he has failed to satisfy bail requirements on [] new criminal charges, then
the time spent in custody shall be credited to his new sentence.” Gaito, 412 A.2d at
571. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas set bail at $150,000 on February
27, 2019. C.R. at 100. Dodd did not satisfy these bail requirements, and, therefore,
he remained incarcerated pending his trial on the Dauphin County charges. Dodd
neglects the distinction between instances where a parolee meets bail requirements
on new charges and where a parolee does not meet such requirements. As Dodd is
a parolee of the latter category, per our Supreme Court, he was not eligible to receive
8
credit on his original sentence for the time he was held prior to sentencing solely on
his Dauphin County charges. Therefore, the Board did not err or abuse its discretion
in recalculating Dodd’s maximum sentence date as October 31, 2021, and by only
awarding backtime for the time Dodd was held prior to sentencing on both the
Board’s detainer and his Dauphin County charges.
III. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, we grant Counsel’s Application and
affirm the Board’s Order.
______________________________
J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge
9
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Eric Dodd, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1065 C.D. 2020
:
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of July 2021, we GRANT Michael Halkias,
Esq.’s Application to Withdraw as Counsel and AFFIRM the October 1, 2020 Order
of the Pennsylvania Parole Board.
______________________________
J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge