Com. ex rel. Jacobs, A. v. Clark, M.

J-S43035-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
EX REL. ANDRE JACOBS : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
: No. 181 WDA 2018
SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL CLARK, :
SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS JOHN :
E. WETZEL :
Appeal from the Order January 12, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-MD-0000122-2017
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Pro se Appellant Andre Jacobs appeals from the order denying his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends, among other things, that
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) improperly calculated his
release date by electing to disregard the trial court’s sentencing order.
Because Appellant’s claim is properly decided by the Commonwealth Court,
we transfer the appeal.
We briefly state the procedural background of this appeal. On December
1, 2016, the trial court docketed what Appellant styled as a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. Appellant’s Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 12/1/16.
Appellant raised several issues in his petition, including retaliation for his prior
successful lawsuit against the DOC, the DOC has failed to treat his
J-S43035-18
neurochemical disease, and the DOC improperly delayed his release date from
prison, thus preventing him from commencing his federal sentence. Id. at 5;
id. at Ex. 6. In relevant part, Exhibit 6 is the DOC’s handwritten response to
Appellant’s query regarding the delay of his release:
You were sentenced in Fayette County on 4/18/2008 to 2y 3m –
10y at docket CP 265/2005. This was listed as a detainer. CP
265/2005 should have been an active sentence, as any state
sentence must be finished before the state releases you to Federal
detainer.
A new 16E/status sheet is being calculated and will be sent to you
upon completion.
Id.
Following a hearing, the court, on January 12, 2018, denied Appellant’s
petition, reasoning that Pennsylvania “has primary jurisdiction under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction and [Appellant’s] state sentences have been
properly aggregated. Upon relinquishment of jurisdiction by the
Commonwealth, [Appellant] will commence to serve his federal sentence.”
Order, 1/12/18.
Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement, which claimed, inter alia, that the DOC lacked authority
to disregard a sentencing order, resulting in his illegal detainment. Appellant’s
Rule 1925(b) Statement, 2/6/18.
Appellant raises the following issues in his brief:
1. Does the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections have the
authority to administrative override a sentencing judge’s
-2-
J-S43035-18
sentencing scheme, and forcibly maintain custody of a person not
serving an active prison sentence?
2. Is a new sentencing hearing warranted when the place of
confinement is unable or unwilling to honor a sentencing court’s
sentencing scheme?
3. Are newly appointed judges permitted to change a prior judge’s
recorded sentencing scheme without providing a new sentencing
hearing?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Initially, we discuss whether we have jurisdiction, which we may raise
sua sponte. Brady Contracting Co. v. W. Manchester Twp. Sewer Auth.,
487 A.2d 894, 896 (Pa. Super. 1985). Generally, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 761-762
address the Commonwealth Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction.
“Where discretionary actions and criteria are not being contested, but rather
the actions of the Department in computing an inmate’s maximum and
minimum dates of confinement are being challenged, an action for mandamus
remains viable as a means for examining whether statutory requirements
have been met.” McCray v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127, 1130-31
(Pa. 2005). “A writ of mandamus will lie to compel the Department of
Corrections to properly compute a prisoner’s prison sentence.” Bright v. Pa.
Bd. of Probation & Parole, 831 A.2d 775, 777-78 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)
(citations omitted). We add that it appears the Commonwealth Court has
routinely resolved such issues. See, e.g., Griffin v. Pa. Dept’ of Corr., 862
A.2d 152, 158 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004); Newsuan v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 853
A.2d 409, 411 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
-3-
J-S43035-18
Here, although Appellant’s petition is styled as a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, it alleges the DOC failed to properly calculate his maximum
state sentence such that he should begin serving his federal sentence. See
McCray, 872 A.2d at 1130-31; Bright, 831 A.2d at 777-78; see also Griffin,
862 A.2d at 158 n.7; Newsuan, 853 A.2d at 411. Accordingly, given the
Commonwealth Court’s familiarity with Appellant’s issues, we transfer the
appeal to the Commonwealth Court.
Case transferred to Commonwealth Court. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/18/2018
-4-