IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Vincent Caccese, : Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 832 C.D. 2018

: Submitted: March 8, 2019 Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: April 17, 2019

Vincent Caccese (Caccese), an inmate at a state correctional institution,

petitions f or review from an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

(Board) that denied administrative relief. Caccese argue s the Board improperly

assumed parole supervision over him, in that the sentencing judge in Montgomery

County retained jurisd iction for supervision and parole regarding Caccese’s

Montgomery County convictions. Thus, he contends the Board erred by including

his Montgomery County convictions in calculating his maximum sentence date

. Upon review, we affirm the Board’s order.

I. Background

Caccese has a history of criminal convictions for driving under the

influence of alcohol and controlled substances , as well as various related charges

.

Of relevance here, in 2013 Caccese received a prison sentence in Montgomery

County of 3 months 28 days to 5 years, with a minimum sentence date of December2

26, 2013 and a maximum sentence date of August 28, 2018. In 2014 h e received a

prison sentence in Bucks County of 90 days to 1 year 1 1 months, with a minimum

sentence date of May 21, 2014

, and a maximum sentence date of August 21, 2015.

He also received a consecutive sentence of 90 days.

Caccese was released on parole in October 2014, but was repeatedly

recommitted by the Board and se ntenced to serve backtime as a technical parole

violator (TPV). While on reparole in 2016 , Caccese was charged with new crimes

in Bucks County. In December 201 6 , Caccese received sentences of 6 to 12 months

and 10 days to 23 months plus 12 months ’ probat ion on the new charges. The Board

thereafter recommitted Caccese as a convicted parole violator (CPV). Currently,

Caccese’s recalculated maximum sentence date is January 27, 2020.

In February 2017, Caccese sought administrative relief from the

Board’s exercise of supervision over his Montgomery County convictions. The

record does not indicate the Board’s decision , but relief was apparently denied, as

the Board is still supervising the Montgomery County con victions

.

In August 2017, Caccese sought administrative relief from the Board’s

recalculation of his maximum sentencing date following his new Bucks County

convictions. In May 2018, the Board affirmed its recalculation of Caccese’s

maximum sentence date. Caccese’s petition for review followed

.

II. Discussion

Caccese points out that the sentencing judge in Montgomery County

checked a form indicating an intent to retain jurisdiction in the county for purposes3

of sentencing supervision and parole. In his petition for review, Caccese argues the

Board therefore was not permitted to include his Montgomery County convictions

in recalculating his maximum sentence. We discern no merit in this argument.

Caccese fails to develop his argument in any meaningful wa y. He does

not cite authority other than two section s of the Vehicle Code , 75 Pa. C.S. §§3804 (d)

and 3815 ; n or does he otherwise develop the argument by legal analysis applying

facts and law. Therefore, he has waived his argument. D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area Sch.

Dist.

, 2 A. 3 d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 20 1 0) (failure to develop issue or cite authority for

it in argument section of brief constitutes waiver).

Further, under 42 Pa. C.S. §9762(b)

, sentences with maximum terms

of five or more years must be committed to the Department of Corrections

(Department) for confinement in state prison

. Notably, the maximum term described

in Section 9762 (f) refers to “ the entire continuous term of incarceration to which a

person is subject, ” even if th at term inc ludes multiple sentence s , sen tences imposed

for violations of probation

, and s entences on recommitment for violations of parole.

42 Pa. C.S. §9762(f). Even where sentences are to be served concurrently, they are

aggregated for purposes of determining whe ther they must be served in state or

county prison. See Commonwealth v. Jamison , 652 A.2d 862 (Pa. Super. 1995)

,

affirmed sub nom. Commonwealth v. Tilghman , 673 A.2d 898 (Pa. 1996)

.

Here, Caccese received a sentence with a five

- year maximum in

Montgomery Count y . Accordingly, Section 9762 mandates service of Caccese’s

prison term in state prison , unless some exception applies

.4 Section 3815(a) of the Vehicle Code , cited by Caccese, allows a

sentencing court to retain jurisdiction over parole for certain o ffenses related to

driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. 75 Pa. C.S.

§ 3815(a). However, the county court’s authority in that regard is limited: “The

power of the sentencing judge to grant parole shall apply only to those offen ders

whose sentences are being served in a county prison pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §9762

... or [75 Pa. C.S. §]3804(d).” Id.

As discussed above, 42 Pa. C.S. §9762 does not authorize service of

Caccese’s Montgomery County sentence in county prison. Thus, to establish his

entitlement to serve his sentence in county prison, Caccese must demonstrate that 75

Pa. C.S. §3804(d) applies.

Section 3804 (d) of the Vehicle Code provid es that , notwithstanding the

limitations of 42 Pa. C.S. §9762, a county court may order that a sentence be served

in county prison if, “ after the initial assessment required by section 3814(1), the

person is determined to be in need of additional treatment pursua nt to section

3814(2) ....” 75 Pa. C.S. §3804(d). In turn, Section 3814 of the Vehicle Code

contemplates a formal assessment process by the Department of Health, the county

agency responsible for county drug and alcohol programs, or clinical personnel of a

facility licensed by the Department of Health to provide drug and alcohol treatment

programs. 75 Pa. C.S. §3814(3). That assessment must consider public safety

issues

, and it must also provide recommendations on length of stay, levels of care,

and follo w

- up care and monitoring. 75 Pa. C.S. §3814(4).5 Unfortunately, Caccese does not cite to any parts of Section 3814 of the

Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3814, nor does he otherwise exp lain how these

provisions apply here . As a result, we lack sufficient guid ance to review this

possible issue, and we deem it waived. D.Z.

Accordingly, the Board correctly determined that it, not the county

court, had jurisdiction over Caccese’s supervision and parole.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Boar d’s order.

ROBERT SIMPSON, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Vincent Caccese, : Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 832 C.D. 2018

: Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, : Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW , this 17 th day of April , 2019, the order of the Pennsylvania

Board of Probation and Parole is AFFIRMED

.

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge