IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Adam Matarese, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 572 C.D. 2016

Respondent : Submitted: October 7, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: January 12, 2017

Adam Matarese (Matarese) petitions this Court for review of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s (Board) March 29, 2016 order denying 

his request for administrative relief. The sole issue before this Court is whether the 

Board properly calculated Matarese’s new maximum sentence release date as March

29, 2017. After review, we affirm.

Matarese is currently an inmate at State Correctional InstitutionMahanoy. On April 28, 2014, the Board paroled Matarese from an 11 month, 8-day 

to 3-year sentence for manufacturing/sale/delivery or possession with intent to deliver 

a controlled substance (Original Sentence). At that time, his maximum sentence 

release date was June 13, 2016. Before his June 30, 2014 release on parole, Matarese 

agreed to conditions governing his parole, including:

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 
2

the sentence or sentences which you were serving when 

paroled/reparoled, with no credit for time at liberty on

parole.

Certified Record (C.R.) at 7-9.

On August 2, 2014, the Board lodged a warrant to commit and detain 

Matarese for technical parole violations and arrested him. On November 3, 2014, the 

Berks County Police Department arrested Matarese for Intentional Possession of a 

Controlled Substance by a Person not Registered and the Berks County Common 

Pleas Court (trial court) set bail for $25,000.00, which Matarese was unable to post. 

On January 13, 2015, Matarese pled guilty to the Berks County charge, and the trial 

court sentenced him to 6 to 23 months incarceration with a 7-day credit for January 7 

to January 13, 2015.1 See C.R. at 69. 

On April 8, 2015, the Board provided Matarese with a notice of charges 

and notice of the Board’s intent to hold a parole revocation hearing. On April 16, 

2015, the Board held the revocation hearing, at which Matarese was represented by 

counsel, and admitted to his Berks County conviction. That same date, the Board 

panel voted to recommit Matarese as a convicted parole violator (CPV), and to grant 

him credit for time he spent at liberty on parole.2 By decision recorded April 23, 

2015 (mailed May 4, 2015), the Board formally recommitted Matarese as a CPV, 

when available, pending completion of, or parole from, his Berks County sentence. 

On August 19, 2015, Matarese was paroled from his Berks County sentence. By 

October 19, 2015 recommitment order, based on his August 19, 2015 parole, the 

Board recalculated Matarese’s Original Sentence maximum release date to March 29, 

2017. By decision recorded on October 13, 2015 (mailed October 26, 2015), the 

 

1

There is no explanation for the 7-day credit in the record.

2

Section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Parole Code provides: “The [B]oard may, in its discretion, 

award credit to a parolee recommitted under paragraph (2) for the time spent at liberty on parole[.]” 

61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1).
3

Board formally recommitted Matarese to serve 6 months backtime as a CPV with a 

maximum sentence release date of March 29, 2017.

The Board calculated Matarese’s new maximum sentence release date as 

follows. When Matarese was released on parole on June 30, 2014, his Original 

Sentence maximum release date was June 13, 2016 and, thus, he owed 714 days of 

backtime towards his Original Sentence. The Board awarded Matarese 33 days credit 

for his time spent at liberty on parole, leaving him with 681 days of backtime to serve 

on his Original Sentence. Matarese received 93 days of credit for the period of 

August 2, 2014 (when the Board lodged its warrant) to November 3, 2014 (when bail 

was set on his Berks County charge but not posted). Crediting 93 days against 681 

days of backtime resulted in Matarese owing 588 days of backtime toward his 

Original Sentence. Matarese became available to begin serving the backtime on his 

Original Sentence when he was released on parole from his Berks County sentence 

on August 19, 2015. Adding 588 days to August 19, 2015 resulted in Matarese’s new 

March 29, 2017 Original Sentence maximum release date.

On November 16, 2015, Matarese submitted an Administrative

Remedies Form challenging the Board’s decision recorded on October 13, 2015

(mailed October 26, 2015), which formally recommitted Matarese as a CPV. On 

March 29, 2016, the Board denied Matarese’s request for administrative relief. 

Matarese appealed to this Court.3

Matarese argues that the Board miscalculated his new maximum 

sentence release date as March 29, 2017. Specifically, Matarese contends that the 

 

3

“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

Board failed to give him credit for all time spent incarcerated solely on the Board’s 

warrant. We disagree.

Matarese was arrested on the Board’s warrant on August 2, 2014. He 

was thereafter arrested in Berks County on November 3, 2014 at which time the trial 

court set bail which Matarese did not post. “[W]here an offender is incarcerated on 

both a Board detainer and new criminal charges, all time spent in confinement must 

be credited to either the new sentence or the original sentence.” Martin v. Pa. Bd. 

of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 309 (Pa. 2003) (emphasis added). 

Further,

[our] Supreme Court held that ‘time spent in custody 

pursuant to a detainer warrant shall be credited to a 

convicted parole violator’s original term . . . only when the 

parolee was eligible for and had satisfied bail 

requirements for the new offense and thus remained 

incarcerated only by reason of the detainer warrant 

lodged against him.’ Gaito [v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole],

. . . 412 A.2d [568,] 571 [(Pa. 1980)] (quoting Rodriques v. 

[Pa.] [Bd.] of Prob[.] [&] Parole, . . . 403 A.2d 184, 185-86 

([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1979)) (emphasis added). 

Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348, 352 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) 

(bold emphasis added). Thus, because Matarese did not post bail, the time he spent 

incarcerated between November 3, 2014 (the date bail was set), until January 13, 

2015 (the day he pled guilty and was sentenced on the Berks County charge), must be 

credited to Matarese’s Berks County sentence. Moreover, Section 9760 of the 

Sentencing Code provides, in pertinent part:

After reviewing the information submitted under [S]ection 

9737 [of the Sentencing Code] (relating to report of 

outstanding charges and sentences) the court shall give 

credit as follows:

(1) Credit against the maximum term and any minimum 

term shall be given to the defendant for all time spent in 

custody as a result of the criminal charge for which a prison 
5

sentence is imposed or as a result of the conduct on which 

such a charge is based. Credit shall include credit for 

time spent in custody prior to trial, during trial, pending 

sentence, and pending the resolution of an appeal.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 (emphasis added). 

Because Matarese never posted bail on his Berks County charge, the 

only time spent solely on the Board’s warrant was from August 2, 2014 to November 

3, 2014. Since Matarese was properly credited for those 93 days, the Board did not 

err in calculating his new Original Sentence maximum release date.4

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

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

 

4

It appears that 

[Matarese’s] sole basis for requesting credit from the Board is that he 

was not given credit on his new sentence. Pursuant to Melhorn [v. 

Pa. Board of Probation and Parole, 883 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2005)], and McCray [v. Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 

(Pa. 2005)], where a sentencing court does not give an inmate full 

credit for time served, the inmate’s remedy is in the trial court

and through the direct appeal process, not through the Board.

Under the facts presented here, we conclude that the Board properly

refused to apply [Matarese’s] pre-sentence confinement time towards 

his [O]riginal [S]entence.

Armbruster, 919 A.2d at 356 (emphasis added).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Adam Matarese, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 572 C.D. 2016

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2017, the Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole’s March 29, 2016 order is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge