IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pedro Serrano, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 2102 C.D. 2015

Respondent : Submitted: March 4, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: July 13, 2016

Pedro Serrano (Serrano) petitions this Court for review of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s (Board) September 4, 2015 order 

denying his petition for administrative review (Petition). The sole issue before the 

Court is whether the Board erred in calculating his maximum sentence release date. 

After review, we affirm.

Serrano is currently an inmate at State Correctional Institution at Fayette

(SCI-Fayette). On August 14, 2006, the Board paroled Serrano from a 61⁄2 to 13-year 

sentence for aggravated assault. At that time, his maximum release sentence date was

February 9, 2013. On March 15, 2010, the Board revoked Serrano’s parole,

recommitted him as a convicted parole violator, and recalculated his maximum 

sentence release date from February 9, 2013 to November 4, 2014.

On August 6, 2010, the Board reparoled Serrano from his original 

sentence to a state detainer sentence. Serrano signed and acknowledged Conditions 
2

Governing Parole/Reparole (Conditions) which notified Serrano that “[i]f 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 [ROR] from those charges.” Certified Record (C.R.) at 21. The 

Conditions also informed Serrano 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. On 

October 4, 2012, the Board paroled Serrano from his state detainer sentence to an 

approved home plan. On December 27, 2012, after Serrano violated parole, instead 

of revoking parole, the Board diverted Serrano to the secured parole violator program 

where Serrano remained until May 20, 2013, when he was released to normal parole 

supervision.

On September 19, 2013, the Philadelphia Police Department arrested 

Serrano on new criminal charges (Philadelphia County Charges) and held him in the 

Philadelphia County Prison. On September 20, 2013, Philadelphia County 

Municipal Court detained Serrano in lieu of bail. On that same date, the Board 

lodged its detainer against Serrano. On October 31, 2013, Serrano was released on 

ROR bail. However, pursuant to his parole conditions, on November 6, 2013, 

Serrano was returned to a state correctional institution on the Board’s detainer. On 

March 20, 2014, Serrano pled guilty to the new criminal charges. Serrano was 

sentenced to 111⁄2 to 23-months

1

in Philadelphia County Prison (Philadelphia County 

Sentence). 

 

1

Serrano was sentenced to two 111⁄2 to 23-month sentences to run concurrently. 
3

On April 18, 2014, Serrano signed a “Waiver of Revocation Hearing and 

Counsel/Admission Form,” waived a revocation hearing and admitted to violating 

parole conditions. C.R. at 41. By June 20, 2014 decision, the Board recommitted 

Serrano as a convicted parole violator, when available, pending completion of or 

parole from the Philadelphia County Sentence. Serrano was paroled from his

Philadelphia County Sentence on February 5, 2015. By decision mailed April 9, 

2015, the Board recalculated Serrano’s maximum sentence release date from 

November 4, 2014 to July 26, 2018. On May 12, 2015, Serrano filed his Petition

objecting to the recalculated date. By September 4, 2015 decision, the Board denied 

the Petition and affirmed the Board’s decision. Serrano appealed to this Court.2

Serrano argues that the Board erred in calculating his maximum sentence 

release date. In support, Serrano makes several general assertions but does not 

develop them, or clearly explain how they apply to his circumstances. 

Serrano first contends that his “Constitutional Rights were violated 

pursuant to Due Process protection since he was detained by the Board while his new 

charge was disposed.” Serrano Br. at 10. That statement is the entirety of Serrano’s 

argument. Serrano does not provide any further explanation. “A party’s failure to 

develop an issue in the argument section of its brief constitutes waiver of the issue.”

In re: Condemnation by the Dep’t of Transp., 76 A.3d 101, 106-07 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2013). Thus, absent further explanation or legal authority in support of his assertion, 

Serrano’s due process argument is waived. 

Serrano next asserts that “it is clearly established law that a revocation 

hearing must be held within 120 days of the Board’s receipt of the official notice of 

the guilty verdict or plea.” Serrano Br. at 10. This statement is the entirety of 

 

2

“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.” Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. &

Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
4

Serrano’s argument. Thus, because he fails to develop this argument,3it is waived. 

See In re: Condemnation.

Serrano also argues, without further explanation, that the 

Board cannot use [the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole 

Code)4] requirement that new sentence be served prior to 

and consecutive to state parole backtime to preclude another 

Judge from directing[5]that its sentence be served 

concurrent with the parole time and crediting its sentence 

with time parolee spent on the Board’s warrant. [Serrano] 

is entitled to credit against his backtime with all time served 

as the Board would not attribute that period of confinement 

[sic] another sentence.

Serrano Br. at 10.

Section 6138(a) of the Parole Code provides, in pertinent part:

(1) A parolee under the jurisdiction of the [B]oard released 

from a correctional facility who, during the period of parole 

or while delinquent on parole, commits a crime punishable 

by imprisonment, for which the parolee is convicted or 

found guilty by a judge or jury or to which the parolee 

pleads guilty or nolo contendere at any time thereafter in a 

court of record, may at the discretion of the [B]oard be 

recommitted as a parole violator. 

(2) If the parolee’s recommitment is so ordered, the parolee 

shall be reentered to serve the remainder of the term 

which the parolee would have been compelled to serve 

had the parole not been granted and . . . shall be given 

no credit for the time at liberty on parole. 

. . . .

(4) The period of time for which the parole violator is 

required to serve shall be computed from and begin on the

 

3

Serrano does not explain how the 120-day period is relevant to his case where he pled 

guilty to the Philadelphia County Charges and waived his right to a revocation hearing. C.R. at 

41. 

4

61 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-6309.

5 Notably, there is nothing in the Philadelphia County Sentence order indicating that the 

sentence was to run concurrently with Serrano’s original sentence. See C.R. at 37-38. 
5

date that the parole violator is taken into custody to be 

returned to the institution as a parole violator.

(5) If a new sentence is imposed on the parolee, the service 

of the balance of the term originally imposed by a 

Pennsylvania court shall precede the commencement of the 

new term imposed in the following cases: 

(i) If a person is paroled from a State correctional institution 

and the new sentence imposed on the person is to be served 

in the State correctional institution. 

(ii) If a person is paroled from a county prison and the new 

sentence imposed upon him is to be served in the same 

county prison.

(iii) In all other cases, the service of the new term for the 

latter crime shall precede commencement of the balance 

of the term originally imposed.

61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a) (emphasis added). 

“[W]hen a parolee is recommitted due to criminal conviction, his 

maximum sentence date may be extended to account for all street-time,[6]regardless 

of good or delinquent standing.” Richards v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 20 A.3d 

596, 599 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has specifically held 

that the Board’s authority to extend maximum term expiration dates under such 

circumstances does not usurp the courts’ sentencing functions, or violate a parolee’s 

due process rights. Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980).7 

Importantly, the Gaito Court explained: 

 

6

“‘Street time’ is a term for the period of time a parolee spends at liberty on parole.” 

Dorsey v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 854 A.2d 994, 996 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

7 Gaito was based upon Section 21.1 of what was commonly known as the Parole Act, Act 

of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, as amended, added by Section 5 of the Act of August 24, 1951, P.L. 

1401, formerly 61 P.S. § 331.21a(a), repealed by the Act of August 11, 2009, P.L. 147. Section 

21.1(a) of the Parole Act similarly stated:

Any parolee under the jurisdiction of the [Board] released from any 

penal institution of the Commonwealth who, during the period of 

parole or while delinquent on parole, commits any crime punishable 

by imprisonment, for which . . . he pleads guilty . . . in a court of 
6

if a defendant is being held 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. If a defendant, however, 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. at 571. This Court recently explained:

In Commonwealth v. Zuber, . . . 353 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1976), 

our Supreme Court recognized that former Section 21.1a(a) 

[of what was commonly referred to as the Parole Act] 

required that a [convicted parole violator (]CPV[)] serve his 

backtime and then his new state sentence in consecutive 

order, regardless of a guilty plea agreement and sentence 

directing that the parole violator’s backtime on his original 

sentence run concurrently with his new sentence. In 

Commonwealth v. Dorian, . . . 468 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 1983), 

the Supreme Court followed Zuber and again held that a 

trial court may not order that a sentence for a new 

conviction run concurrently with the time remaining on the 

CPV’s original sentence.

Thereafter, in Rivera v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation 

and Parole, . . . 470 A.2d 1088 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984), this 

Court, citing Zuber, also recognized that former Section 

21.1a(a) required a CPV to serve the remainder of his 

original sentence and his new sentence consecutively. 

Therefore, Section 21.1a(a) prohibited a trial court from 

sentencing a CPV to serve his new sentence concurrently 

with his backtime on the older sentence. In Rivera, we 

rejected the argument that Section 9761(a) of the 

Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9761(a), a more recent 

statute governing concurrent sentences in criminal cases, 

permitted a sentencing court to order that a new sentence 

 

record, may, at the discretion of the [B]oard, be recommitted as a 

parole violator. If his recommitment is so ordered, he shall be 

reentered to serve the remainder of the term which said parolee 

would have been compelled to serve had he not been paroled, and 

he shall be given no credit for the time at liberty on parole . . . .

(Emphasis added).
7

run concurrently with Board backtime. We reasoned that 

Section 21.1a(a), a specific statute addressing the 

sentencing of convicted parole violators, prevailed.

In Walker v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole,

729 A.2d 634 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), we again recognized that 

former Section 21.1a(a) mandated that sentences for crimes 

committed on parole be served consecutively with time 

remaining on original sentences and that neither the courts 

nor the Board may impose concurrent sentences. Further, a 

CPV must serve his backtime prior to serving his new 

sentence. Hall v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 733 A.2d 19 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).

Recently, we recognized that Section 6138(a)(5) of the 

[Parole] Code, the successor to former Section 21.1a(a), 

likewise requires that CPVs serve the backtime on their 

original state sentence before they can begin to serve time 

on a newly imposed state sentence. Wilson v. Pa. Bd. of 

Prob. & Parole, 124 A.3d 767 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 

Therefore, the Board may not impose backtime to run 

concurrently with a new sentence for an offense committed 

while on parole. Walker; Harris v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & 

Parole, . . . 393 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (Board may 

not impose backtime to run concurrently with the new 

sentence for the crime committed while on parole, 

regardless of a court order that the sentences run 

concurrently).

Palmer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 134 A.3d 160, 165 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 

In the Board’s September 4, 2015 denial, it informed Serrano:

The Board paroled you from a state correctional institution . 

. . on August 6, 2010 with a maximum sentence date of 

November 4, 2014. This left you with 1551 days remaining 

on your sentence (from 08/06/2010 to 11/04/2014 = 1551 

days). As previously stated, the Board chose to deny you 

credit for time at liberty on parole based on your 

recommitment as a convicted parole violator. This includes 

the period you were on parole from your sentence at inmate 

number ED-6564 but confined on the detainer sentence at 

inmate number JR-3447. This means you still had 1551 

days remaining on your sentence.
8

Following your parole from the detainer sentence at inmate 

number JR-3447, supervision staff arrested you for parole 

violations on December 27, 2012. The Board chose not to 

recommit you for those violation[s] and instead placed you 

in the parole violator program. You remained in that 

program until May 20, 2013 at which time you were 

released.

On September 20, 2013, authorities detained you for new 

criminal charges that were docketed in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County at CP# 12584-2013. 

The Board lodged its detainer against you that same day. 

The court granted you [release on your own recognizance] 

bail on October 31, 2013, but you remained confined on the 

[B]oard detainer. On March 20, 2014, you pled guilty to 

the new criminal charges and the court sentenced you to a 

new term of imprisonment to be served in the county prison 

that same day. The court paroled you from the new county 

prison sentence February 5, 2015.

Based on these facts, the Board gave you 144 days of credit 

on your original sentence for the period you were confined 

and/or in the parole violators program from December 27, 

2012 to May 20, 2013. The Board also gave you 140 days 

of credit for the period you [were] incarcerated solely on the 

[B]oard detainer from October 31, 2013 to March 20, 2014. 

Added together, this gave you a total of 284 days of credit 

on your original sentence. The Board did not give you 

credit for the period that you were incarcerated from 

September 20, 2013 to October 31, 2013 because you were 

held on both the new criminal charges and the [B]oard 

detainer or solely on the new criminal charges during this 

time. As such, credit for this time must apply to the new 

sentence. Subtracting the 284 days of credit you received 

from the 1551 days you had remaining left 1267 days to 

serve on your sentence.

The [Parole Code] provides that convicted parole violators 

who are paroled from [a state correctional institution] and 

then receive a new sentence to be served in a county prison 

must serve the new sentence first. 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5). 

This means you did not become available to serve your 

original sentence until the court paroled you from the new 

county prison sentence on February 5, 2015. Adding the 

1267 days you had remaining on the sentence to this 
9

availability date yields a new maximum sentence date of 

July 26, 2018.

C.R. at 108-109. 

Serrano was paroled from a state correctional institution. The 

subsequent Philadelphia County Sentence was to be served in county prison.

Pursuant to Section 6138(a)(5)(iii) of the Parole Code, service of the Philadelphia 

County Sentence was required to precede commencement of the balance of Serrano’s 

original sentence. The Board properly concluded that the time of Serrano’s 

confinement on both the Board detainer and Philadelphia County Charges – between 

September 20, 2013 to October 31, 2013 – was to be credited against the Philadelphia 

County Charges, and not his backtime. Further, the Board correctly determined that 

Serrano did not become available to serve his original sentence until he was paroled 

from the Philadelphia County Sentence. There is no support for Serrano’s argument 

that his Philadelphia County Sentence should have run concurrently with his 

backtime. Therefore, his argument fails. Further, reviewing the Board’s rationale,

and applying the aforementioned authority, we discern no error in the Board’s 

recalculation of Serrano’s maximum sentence release date to July 26, 2018.

For all of the above reasons, the Board’s order is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pedro Serrano, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 2102 C.D. 2015

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2016, the Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole’s September 4, 2015 order is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge