C. Kratzer v. PBPP

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Christopher Brian Kratzer, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Parole Board, : No. 808 C.D. 2020
Respondent : Submitted: February 12, 2021
BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge
HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: July 16, 2021
Christopher Brian Kratzer (Kratzer) petitions for review from the July
31, 2020 order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) denying his request for
administrative relief filed March 9, 2020, that alleged that the Board failed to grant
Kratzer credit for time spent incarcerated pursuant to the Board’s warrant and for
time spent in good standing at liberty on parole. The Board has filed an Application
for Summary Relief asserting that the matter is moot. Upon review, we grant the
Board’s Application for Summary Relief and dismiss Kratzer’s petition as moot.
On July 17, 2015, Kratzer was sentenced to an aggregate term of 18
months to 4 years of incarceration following his guilty plea to 3 counts of Burglary
(Original Sentence).1 See Sentence Status Summary, Certified Record (C.R.) at 1-
3. On May 18, 2016, Kratzer was granted parole on his Original Sentence subject
to multiple Conditions Governing Parole/Reparole (Conditions of Parole), which
conditions Kratzer acknowledged by signing the Conditions of Parole prior to his
release. See Notice of Board Decision dated May 18, 2016, C.R. at 4-7; see also
Conditions of Parole, C.R. at 8-11. The Conditions of Parole required Kratzer,
among other things, to: (1) reside in an approved residence not to be changed
without written permission of parole supervision staff (Condition 2), and (2)
maintain regular contact with parole supervision staff by reporting regularly as
instructed and following written instructions of the Board or parole supervision staff
(Condition 3(a)). See C.R. at 8. The Conditions of Parole further informed Kratzer:
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 for 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
1
Kratzer was sentenced on two counts of Burglary, overnight accommodation, person
present, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(1), and one count of Burglary, overnight accommodation, no person
present, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(2).
2
paroled/reparoled, with no credit for time at liberty on
parole.
C.R. at 8. Kratzer was ultimately released on parole on February 15, 2017, with a
maximum sentence date of November 12, 2018, which left 635 days remaining on
his Original Sentence. See Notice of Board Decision dated May 18, 2016, C.R. at
4-7.
Following his release, Kratzer absconded from supervision and was
declared delinquent from parole effective February 26, 2018. See Wanted Notice
Request executed Mar. 12, 2018, C.R. at 12; see also Board Administrative Action
recorded Mar. 12, 2018, C.R. at 13. Following his arrest in Northampton County on
new criminal drug charges (Northampton County Charges),2 the Board detained
Kratzer on August 10, 2018. See Criminal Complaint, C.R. at 16-22; see also
Warrant to Commit and Detain dated Aug. 10, 2018 (Detention Warrant), C.R. at
14.
On August 30, 2018, Kratzer waived his right to counsel and his
revocation hearing and admitted to two technical parole violations for violating
Condition 2 and Condition 3(a). See Waiver of Violation Hearing and
Counsel/Admission Form executed Aug. 30, 2018, C.R. at 26. As a result, on
October 15, 2018, the Board recommitted Kratzer as a technical parole violator with
a maximum parole violation date of April 26, 2019, which date was subject to change
depending on the outcome of the Northampton County Charges. See Order to
2
The Northampton County Charges were for violations of Section 13(a) of The Controlled
Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, as amended:
Possession of a Controlled Substance, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16); Small Amount of Marijuana, 35
P.S. § 780-113(a)(31); Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32). See Criminal
Compliant, C.R. at 16-20; see also Criminal Arrest and Disposition Report, C.R. at 23-24.
3
Recommit dated Oct. 15, 2018, C.R. at 45-46; see also Notice of Board Decision
dated Oct. 15, 2018, C.R. at 47-49.
On January 10, 2019, Kratzer pleaded guilty to the Northampton
County Charges3 and was sentenced to serve 3 to 12 months’ incarceration with
credit for all time served in custody. See Court of Common Pleas of Northampton
County Docket No. CP-48-CR0003636-2018 at 2-3, C.R. at 59-60. Thereafter, on
April 19, 2019, Kratzer waived his right to counsel and a revocation hearing and
admitted that his new convictions constituted parole violations. See Waiver of
Revocation Hearing and Counsel/Admission Form dated Apr. 19, 2019, C.R. at 55.
On August 1, 2019, the Board entered a decision that deleted the
reparole clause of the Board’s October 15, 2018 decision and recommitted Kratzer
to serve six months as a convicted parole violator when available following the
completion of or parole from of the Northampton County Charges conviction. See
Notice of Board Decision dated Aug. 1, 2019, C.R. at 75-76.
Kratzer was granted parole from the Northampton County Charges
conviction on October 18, 2019. See Court of Common Pleas of Northampton
County Order dated Oct. 18, 2019, C.R. at 77. The Board thereafter notified Kratzer
that, because he had absconded from supervision while on parole, he would receive
no credit for time at liberty on parole; the Board set Kratzer’s new maximum
sentence date as April 21, 2021. See Notice of Board Decision dated Feb. 12, 2020,
C.R. at 80-81.
3
Kratzer pleaded guilty to Possession of a Controlled Substance. See Court of Common
Pleas of Northampton County Docket No. CP-48-CR0003636-2018 at 2, C.R. at 59. The
Commonwealth withdrew the remaining charges. See id. at 3, C.R. at 60.
4
On March 9, 2020, Kratzer filed a counseled administrative appeal4
alleging the Board failed to properly award him credit for time spent detained on the
Detention Warrant as well as for time spent in good standing while at liberty on
parole.5 See Administrative Remedies Form dated Mar. 9, 2020 (Administrative
Appeal), C.R. at 93. The Board denied the Administrative Appeal by letter dated
July 31, 2020. See Letter from Board to Attorney Watkins dated July 31, 2020 at 1-
3, C.R. at 99-101. Kratzer appealed to this Court.6
On appeal, Kratzer argues that the Board erred by failing to give him
credit for all time served on the Detention Warrant and when he was recommitted as
4
Kent D. Watkins, Esquire, entered his appearance on Kratzer’s behalf on August 19, 2019.
See Kent D. Watkins Letter dated Aug. 19, 2019, C.R. at 84. Prior to the entry of Attorney
Watkins’ appearance, Kratzer had filed an administrative appeal pro se on August 14, 2019. See
Administrative Remedies Form dated Aug. 8, 2019, C.R. at 82-83. Thereafter, and despite
Attorney Watkins’ entry of appearance, Kratzer filed another pro se administrative appeal on
August 27, 2019. See Administrative Remedies Form dated Aug. 27, 2019, C.R. at 86. Kratzer
also wrote to the Board directly in December 2019 to inquire as to the status of his administrative
appeals. See Kratzer Letter dated Dec. 19, 2019, C.R. at 90. The Board took no action on Kratzer’s
pro se filings, regarding them instead as second or subsequent requests to the counseled
administrative appeal filed by Attorney Watkins. See Board Letter to Watkins dated July 31, 2020,
at 1, C.R. at 99.
5
The Administrative Appeal stated the allegations as follows:
The [Board] failed to give [Kratzer] credit while incarcerated,
served pursuant to the [B]oard’s warrant and previously credited.
The [Board] abused its discretion for failing to give [Kratzer] credit
for all time in good standing while on parole. Ndenial [sic] was in
the 8/1/2019 [B]oard action.
Administrative Remedies Form dated Mar. 9, 2020, C.R. at 93.
6
“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.” Kazickas v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. &
Parole, 226 A.3d 109, 115 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 238 A.3d 1170 (Pa. 2020) (quoting
Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)).
5
a technical parole violator, and by failing to award him credit for time spent at liberty
on parole. See Kratzer’s Br. at 4 & 11-14. Kratzer asks this Court to vacate the
Board’s order and remand the matter for recalculation of his sentence with
appropriate credits. See Kratzer’s Br. at 15.
After this Court entered an order directing the submission of the matter
on the briefs submitted by the parties, the Board filed an Application for Summary
Relief asserting that the matter is moot. See generally Application for Summary
Relief filed April 22, 2021 (Application for Summary Relief). Specifically, in the
Application for Summary Relief the Board asserts that Kratzer has reached his
maximum sentence date and is no longer on parole. See Application for Summary
Relief at 1 (pagination supplied). As such, the Board contends that this matter is
now moot because the issues raised and relief sought can no longer be redressed by
a favorable judicial decision. See id.We first address the Board’s suggestion of mootness, as this claim is
dispositive of this matter. As this Court has explained:
Clearly, the expiration of a parolee’s maximum term
renders an appeal of a Board revocation order moot. It is
well settled that an appeal will be dismissed when the
occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the court
to grant the requested relief. Dismissal will be refused
only if the issues involved are capable of repetition yet
likely to evade review and of important public interest, or
where a party will suffer some detriment without the
court’s decision.
Taylor v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 746 A.2d 671, 674 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (internal
citations omitted).
6
Here, there is no dispute7 that Kratzer’s April 21, 2021 maximum
sentence date has expired and he is therefore no longer in the custody and under the
control of the Commonwealth. As a result, it is now impossible for this Court to
grant Kratzer’s requested relief, and his appeal is accordingly moot.8 Therefore, we
grant the Board’s Application for Summary Relief and dismiss Kratzer’s petition for
review as moot.9
__________________________________
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
7
We note that this Court entered an order on May 6, 2021, directing Kratzer to file an
answer to the Application for Summary Relief within 14 days. See Order dated May 6, 2021.
Kratzer did not comply.
8
We note that Kratzer has not asserted either that the issues involved in this matter are of
important public interest or are capable of repetition but likely to avoid review.
9
Moreover, even if not moot, the record supports the Board’s factual determinations that:
(1) Kratzer absconded from supervision; (2) Kratzer was arrested for new criminal drug charges
while in delinquent status; and (3) the Board properly recalculated Kratzer’s maximum sentence
date. See Letter from Board to Attorney Watkins dated July 31, 2020 at 1-3, C.R. at 99-101.
7
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Christopher Brian Kratzer, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Parole Board, : No. 808 C.D. 2020
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2021, the Application for Summary
Relief filed by the Pennsylvania Parole Board on April 22, 2021, is GRANTED.
The petition for review filed by Christopher Brian Kratzer is DISMISSED as
MOOT.
__________________________________
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge