D.S. Muhammad v. C.M. Thomas-Director

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dawan S. Muhammad, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 702 M.D. 2019
: SUBMITTED: April 16, 2021
Christopher M. Thomas-Director, :
Classification, Movement, and :
Registration, Philadelphia :
Department of Prisons; :
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :
Department of Corrections; Jamey :
Luther-Superintendent at SCI- :
Smithfield; Katie C. Davis- :
Assistant District Attorney, PCRA :
Unit; Debra L. Bernstein- :
Records Specialist, DOC Central :
Office; Shelly L. Fox- Records :
Specialist, DOC Central Office, :
Respondents :
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge
HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: July 29, 2021
Petitioner Dawan S. Muhammad, an inmate currently incarcerated within our
Commonwealth’s state prison system, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
(Mandamus Petition) in our original jurisdiction against Respondents Christopher
M. Thomas-Director, Classification, Movement, and Registration, Philadelphia
Department of Prisons (Thomas); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Corrections; Jamey Luther-Superintendent at SCI-Smithfield (Luther); Katie C.
Davis-Assistant District Attorney, PCRA Unit; Debra L. Bernstein-Records
Specialist (Bernstein), DOC Central Office; and Shelly L. Fox-Records Specialist,
DOC Central Office (Fox). Through this action, Muhammad seeks a judicial order
compelling the Department of Corrections to recalculate his carceral sentence, in
order to reflect what he alleges is the full amount of credit for time served that he
was awarded by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Sentencing
Court). In response, the Department of Corrections, Bernstein, Fox, and Luther
(collectively, DOC Respondents) have filed preliminary objections in the nature of
a demurrer to Muhammad’s Mandamus Petition, through which they request its
dismissal due to Muhammad’s failure to state a legally viable mandamus claim. In
addition, Muhammad has filed an application for summary relief, arguing that his
right to relief is clear and that he is entitled to judgment in his favor against DOC
Respondents. After thorough review, we sustain DOC Respondents’ preliminary
objections, deny Muhammad’s application for summary relief, and dismiss
Muhammad’s Mandamus Petition as to the DOC Respondents.
I. Background
The relevant facts, as alleged by Muhammad through his Mandamus Petition,
are as follows. On February 26, 2013, Muhammad was arrested and charged with a
litany of crimes, including attempted murder, terroristic threats, aggravated and
simple assault, reckless endangerment, and violating several provisions of the
Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995.1 Mandamus Pet., ¶1. These charges
were eventually split into two separate cases, which were given the ID numbers CP-
51-CR-0003486-2013 (#3486) and CP-51-CR-0006991-2013 (#6991). Id., ¶¶2-4,
Ex. C at 1. On May 24, 2016, Muhammad pled guilty in both cases before the
Sentencing Court and, as a result, received concurrent aggregate sentences of 7 to
1
18 Pa. C.S. §§ 6101-6128.
2
14 years in state prison, as well as 3 years of probation. Id., ¶5, Ex. C at 14-25.
According to Muhammad, the Sentencing Court also ordered that he receive credit
toward these sentences in the amount of 1,045 days, covering the time period
between February 24, 2013, and January 5, 2016. Id., ¶¶7, 9, 12-13.
After being incarcerated, Muhammad received a sentence status summary
sheet from the Department of Corrections, which, to Muhammad’s surprise, did not
indicate that any credit had been awarded for that time period. Id., ¶8. In response,
Muhammad filed a motion for time credit and a Post Conviction Relief Act2 petition
with the Sentencing Court in June 2017. Id., ¶¶14-15. On February 13, 2019, the
Sentencing Court issued what it labelled an “Order of Sentence (Order Granting
Motion to Correct Credit Time).” Id., ¶ 17, Ex. B. This order, which was docketed
under #3486, reads as follows:
Count 1 - 18 [Pa. C.S.] § 6106 §§A1 - Firearms Not To
Be Carried W/O License (F3)
To be confined for a minimum period of 2 Year(s)
and a maximum period of 4 Year(s) at SCI
Graterford.
The following conditions are imposed:
Credit Time Served - Resentence/Amended
State Sent - Credit Time Served: Previously
CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED as Ordered
on ORIGINAL SENTENCE IMPOSED on
(05/24/2016), SPECIFICALLY Credit For
Time Served From: **(02/24/2013-
03/16/2013; 06/18/2015-11/09/2015); and
(07/05/2016-02/13/2019)**
Mandatory Court Costs - Court Costs:
Mandatory Court Costs Reimposed.
Sentencing - Concurrent confinement:
**This Sentence in its ENTIRETY to run
2
42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
3
CONCURRENTLY WITH Sentence
Imposed as to CP[-]51[-]CR[-]0006991-
2013**
This sentence shall commence on 02/13/2019.
To be placed on Probation - State (PBPP) Regular
Probation - for a maximum period of 3 Year(s) to be
supervised by STATE-Adult Parole/Probation
Department-(Philadelphia County).
Count 2 - 18 [Pa. C.S.] § 6108 - Carry Firearms Public In
Phila (M1)
To be confined for a minimum period of 2 Year(s)
6 Month(s) and a maximum period of 5 Year(s) at
SCI Graterford.
The following conditions are imposed:
Credit for time served: Credit to be calculated
by the Phila. Prison System
This sentence shall commence on 02/13/2019.
Count 3 -18 [Pa. C.S.] § 907[(a)]- Poss Instrument Of
Crime W/Int (M1)
To be confined for a minimum period of 2 Year(s)
6 Month(s) and a maximum period of 5 Year(s) at
SCI Graterford.
This sentence shall commence on 02/13/2019.
Count 4 -18 [Pa. C.S.] § 2702[(a)]- Aggravated Assault
(F1)
To be placed on Probation - State (PBPP) Regular
Probation - for a maximum period of 3 Year(s) to be
supervised by the STATE-Adult Parole/Probation
Department-(Philadelphia County).
Count 5 -18 [Pa. C.S.] § 6105[(a)-(a.1)] - Possession Of
Firearm Prohibited (F2)
To be placed on Probation - State (PBPP) Regular
Probation - for a maximum period of 3 Year(s) to be
supervised by the STATE-Adult Parole/Probation
Department-(Philadelphia County).
This sentence shall commence on 02/13/2019.
4
Id., Ex. B at 1 (emphasis in original).3 The Department of Corrections subsequently
recalculated Muhammad’s sentence for #3486 to reflect this order, by giving him
credit for time served between February 24, 2013, and March 16, 2013; June 18,
2015, and November 9, 2015; and July 5, 2016, and February 13, 2019. Id., Ex. D at
2.
On December 27, 2019, Muhammad filed his Mandamus Petition with our
Court. Therein, Muhammad avers that the Sentencing Court had actually given him
credit for time served for the entire period between February 25, 2013, and January
5, 2016, and points to the transcript of his May 24, 2016 sentencing hearing to
support this allegation. Id., ¶¶7, 9, 12-13, 17-18, 20; see id., Ex. C at 23-25.
Accordingly, Muhammad requests that we order Thomas “and/or” the Department
of Corrections to recalculate his sentence for #3486 to reflect 1,045 days of time
credit, covering February 25, 2013, through January 5, 2016, and to consequently
establish the minimum and maximum dates on that sentence as, respectively, March
22, 2020, and March 22, 2027. Id., Relief Sought.
DOC Respondents responded to the Mandamus Petition by filing preliminary
objections, which both they and Muhammad have fully briefed. In addition,
Muhammad has filed an application for summary relief, arguing that his right to
mandamus relief is clear and that he is thus entitled to judgment in his favor against
DOC Respondents.
II. Discussion
DOC Respondents demur to the Mandamus Petition, on the basis that
Muhammad has failed to establish that he has a clear right to the relief he seeks.
3
It is entirely unclear why it took the Sentencing Court roughly 20 months to rule upon
Muhammad’s motion for time credit.
5
Initially, we note that in ruling on a 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.
Meier v. Maleski, 648 A.2d 595, 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (internal citations omitted).
When faced with a demurrer, a petitioner is “under no burden to prove their cause
of action. [Instead, the court is tasked with deciding] whether the facts in the petition
are sufficient to entitle them to relief.” Marinari v. Dep’t of Env’t Res., 566 A.2d
385, 388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
With regard to Muhammad’s cause of action, “[m]andamus is an
extraordinary writ that will only lie to compel official performance of a ministerial
act or mandatory duty where there is a clear legal right in the [petitioner], a
corresponding duty in the [respondent], and want of any other appropriate and
adequate remedy.” Jackson v. Vaughn, 777 A.2d 436, 438 (Pa. 2001). “Thus, [in this
context,] a writ of mandamus can be used to compel the Department of Corrections
to compute properly a prisoner’s prison sentence.” Doxsey v. Com., 674 A.2d 1173,
1175 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (emphasis in original).
Upon review, we agree with DOC Respondents that Muhammad has failed to
establish a clear right to mandamus relief. Per the terms of the Order of Sentence
(Order Granting Motion to Correct Credit Time), the Sentencing Court only awarded
Muhammad credit for time served between February 24, 2013, and March 16, 2013;
June 18, 2015, and November 9, 2015; and July 5, 2016, and February 13, 2019.
Mandamus Pet., Ex. B at 1. Consequently, we conclude that, despite what
6
Muhammad claims in his Mandamus Petition, he does not have a clear right to time
credit towards his carceral sentences for the entire period between February 25,
2013, and January 5, 2016.
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing analysis, we sustain DOC Respondents’ demurrer and
dismiss the Mandamus Petition as to those respondents only.4 Furthermore, we deny
Muhammad’s application for summary relief.
__________________________________
ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
4
None of the remaining respondents have thus far filed any substantive responses to the
Mandamus Petition nor, for that matter, have any attorneys entered their appearances on behalf of
those respondents.
7
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dawan S. Muhammad, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 702 M.D. 2019
:
Christopher M. Thomas-Director, :
Classification, Movement, and :
Registration, Philadelphia :
Department of Prisons; :
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :
Department of Corrections; Jamey :
Luther-Superintendent at SCI- :
Smithfield; Katie C. Davis- :
Assistant District Attorney, PCRA :
Unit; Debra L. Bernstein- :
Records Specialist, DOC Central :
Office; Shelly L. Fox- Records :
Specialist, DOC Central Office, :
Respondents :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2021, upon consideration of Respondents
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections; Jamey Luther-
Superintendent at SCI-Smithfield; Debra L. Bernstein-Records Specialist, DOC
Central Office; and Shelly L. Fox-Records Specialist, DOC Central Office’s
(collectively, DOC Respondents) preliminary objections, the response thereto, and
Petitioner Dawan S. Muhammad’s application for summary relief, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. DOC Respondents’ preliminary objections are SUSTAINED;
2. Muhammad’s application for summary relief is DENIED;
3. Muhammad’s petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED as to DOC
Respondents.
__________________________________
ELLEN CEISLER, Judge