IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Eric Hodges, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 948 C.D. 2018

Respondent : Submitted: January 11, 2019

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge 

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: April 11, 2019

Eric Hodges (Hodges) petitions for review of the June 13, 2018 order 

of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) denying Hodges’ request 

for administrative relief that challenged the recalculation of his parole violation 

maximum sentence date. We affirm.

On February 10, 2014, the Board released Hodges on parole after he 

served time at a state correctional institution (SCI) on his original sentence of 14 to 

40 years of incarceration resulting from his murder conviction. Certified Record 

(C.R.) at 1-2 & 7. Hodges had an original maximum sentence date of February 6, 

2040. Id. at 7. On May 25, 2016, Hodges was arrested on new criminal charges and 

the Board detained Hodges pending disposition of the charges. Id. at 12-16. 
2

On September 14, 2017, Hodges pled guilty to a new crime, possession 

of a firearm when prohibited, which is a violation of Section 6105(a)(1) of 

Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act of 1995, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).1 C.R. at 17. 

On the same day, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) 

sentenced Hodges to incarceration for a period of two years,six months to five years. 

Id. On January 11, 2018, Hodges waived his right to a revocation hearing and 

admitted to the new criminal charges. Id. at 21. On February 6, 2018, the Board 

voted to recommit Hodges as a convicted parole violator (CPV), recommitted him 

to serve 24 months’ backtime,2 and revoked the time he spent at liberty on parole. 

Id. at 24-25. The Board recalculated Hodges’ maximum sentence date to February 

2, 2044.3 Id. at 42-43. 

On April 4, 2018, Hodges filed a request for administrative relief 

contending that the Board erred when it recalculated his maximum sentence date. 

Id. at 44-46. On June 13, 2018, the Board denied his request for relief, explaining 

that there was no indication that it failed to appropriately recalculate his maximum 

sentence date. Id. at 48. On July 12, 2018, Hodges petitioned this Court for review.4 

 

1

18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1) provides “[a] person that has been convicted of an offense 

enumerated in subsection (b) [includes murder], within or without this Commonwealth . . . shall 

not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture . . . a firearm in this Commonwealth.”

2 Backtime is “[t]he unserved part of a prison sentence which a convict would have been 

compelled to serve if the convict had not been paroled.” 37 Pa. Code § 61.1.

3 The Board recalculated Hodges’ maximum sentence date as follows. On February 10, 

2014, the Board initially paroled Hodges and he had 9,492 days remaining on his original sentence 

(original maximum sentence date of February 6, 2040 – February 10, 2014 = 9,492 days). C.R. at 

35-36. On February 6, 2018, the Board voted to recommit Hodges as a CPV; therefore, the Board 

added the 9,492 days he still owed on his original sentence to February 6, 2018 to obtain the new 

maximum sentence date of February 2, 2044. Id. 

4 Our review is limited to determining whether the Board’s adjudication is supported by 

substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights 
3

Before this Court, Hodges, through counsel, makes two arguments. 

First, Hodges asserts that the Board erred because it failed to give him credit for “all 

time served exclusively pursuant to its warrant.” Hodges’ Brief at 9. Hodges 

acknowledges that the Board credited him with time served from his custody for 

return date but argues that the date used by the Board is incorrect. Id. Hodges argues 

that he was moved to an SCI on September 18, 2017, as provided on the 

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ moves report, C.R. at 41, and that this is 

the date that the Board should have used to recalculate his maximum sentence date, 

rather than February 6, 2018. See id. at 9-10. The Board counters that Hodges did 

not become available to begin serving his backtime until February 6, 2018, the date 

that the Board detained him as CPV; therefore, it properly relied on this date to 

complete its recalculation. Board’s Brief at 6-7. 

Section 6138(a)(4) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Code), 61 Pa.C.S. 

§ 6138(a)(4), provides that “[t]he period of time for which the parole violator is 

required to serve shall be computed from and begin on the date that the parole 

violator is taken into custody to be returned to the institution as a [convicted] parole 

violator.” This Court has long held that a CPV’s custody for return date is the date 

that the Board orders the parole revoked; that is, the date the Board obtains the 

necessary signatures to recommit the parolee as a parole violator. See Palmer v. Pa. 

Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 134 A.3d 160, 166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); see also Campbell 

v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 409 A.2d 980, 982 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (explaining 

that a parolee must serve the balance of his original sentence before beginning 

service on the new sentence but “this rule only becomes operative when parole has 

been revoked and the remainder of the original sentence becomes due and owing”). 

 

have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Smoak v. 

Talaber, 193 A.3d 1160, 1163 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 
4

Here, the Board ordered Hodges’ recommitment as a CPV on February 

6, 2018, when it obtained the necessary signatures to do so. C.R. at 29. Therefore, 

Hodges could not commence serving backtime on his original sentence until this 

date. Though the Department of Corrections’ moves report shows that Hodges was 

moved to an SCI on September 18, 2017, the report indicates Hodges’ status as 

“parole violator pend[ing].” C.R. at 41. Otherwise stated, the Board had not yet 

taken action by rendering a decision to recommit Hodges as a CPV, which is the 

pertinent date. See Palmer, 134 A.3d at 166. 

Moreover, Hodges obtains credit, albeit against his new sentence, for 

the time he spent incarcerated while awaiting sentencing on his new crime, as 

Hodges did not post bail. Generally, time spent incarcerated prior to sentencing shall 

be credited to a convicted parole violator’s original sentence only when he has 

satisfied bail requirements for the new offense and, therefore, remains incarcerated 

solely by reason of the Board’s detainer. Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 412 

A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. 1980). When bail is not posted, time incarcerated on both the 

new criminal charges and the Board’s detainer must apply to the new sentence. Id. 

Here, Hodges did not post bail on the new criminal charges. C.R. at 32. As a result,

Hodges was incarcerated on both the Board’s detainer and on the new criminal 

charges from May 25, 2016 (his date of arrest on the new crime) to September 14, 

2017 (his date of sentencing on the new crime). Id. at 17. Therefore, this time must 

apply to the new sentence and cannot be credited against Hodges’ original sentence. 

See Gaito, 412 A.2d at 571. 

Additionally, the time spent in custody from Hodges’ date of conviction 

and sentencing until his recommitment date is also to be credited to the new sentence. 

This Court has explained, “the general rule applied in calculations of minimum and 
5

maximum release dates is that the Board must credit time a parolee spent in custody 

between the date of conviction for the new charge and the date the Board recommits 

him as a direct violator, as in this case, to the new sentence.” Plummer v. Pa. Bd. of 

Prob. & Parole, 926 A.2d 561, 563 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (emphasis added). Here,

the trial court indicated in its sentencing order that Hodges’ sentence on his new 

crime “shall commence” on September 14, 2017. C.R. at 17. Nevertheless, the 

Board detained Hodges pending its disposition on the new crime until February 6, 

2018, when it recommitted him as a CPV. Id. at 16 & 29. Thus, that time must be 

credited to the new sentence. See Plummer, 926 A.2d at 563. 

Second, Hodges argues that the Board erred by failing to award him 

credit for time spent in good standing on parole from February 10, 2014 through 

May 23, 2016. Hodges’ Brief at 11. Hodges contends that revoking this time was 

an abuse of discretion because his second conviction is not a crime of violence, he 

was a “good parolee,” and revoking the time “is a deterrent to the rehabilitative 

effects of parole.” Id. at 11-12. The Board responds that there was no error because 

the Board had the discretion to revoke the time spent at liberty on parole prior to his 

recommitment as a CPV as provided by Section 6138(a)(2) of the Code, 61 Pa.C.S. 

§ 6138(a)(2).

Upon review of the record, we conclude that Hodges has waived this 

argument. It is well settled that the failure to raise an issue before the Board results 

in a waiver of that issue and precludes this Court from review. 2 Pa.C.S. § 703(a) 

(providing that a “party may not raise upon appeal any . . . question not raised before 

the agency”); Pa.R.A.P. 1551(a) (providing that “[n]o question shall be heard or 

considered by the court which was not raised before the government unit”); Price v. 

Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 117 A.3d 362, 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). This Court may 
6

only consider issues not raised before the Board if the issues involve questions 

concerning: (1) the validity of a statute; (2) the jurisdiction of the agency over the 

subject matter of the adjudication; or (3) issues that the Court is satisfied that Hodges 

could not have raised before the Board through the exercise of due diligence. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1551(a)(1)-(3); Price, 117 A.3d at 365. 

In his administrative remedies form filed with the Board, Hodges did

not contest the Board’s decision to refuse to credit him with time spent at liberty on 

parole. See C.R. at 44-46. Though Hodges notes that “the Board decided not to 

award me credit for time I spent while at liberty on parole” he does not challenge 

this aspect of the Board’s decision. C.R. at 45. Rather, Hodges’ argument addresses 

the time he spent: 

in the Philadelphia County prison on a detainer by the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, as well as the time I

spent awaiting the Board’s decision to recommit me as a 

convicted parole violator. During this time period I was not at 

liberty on parole and the Board does not have the discretion to 

take from me this time that I spent in prison. 

Therefore, I humbly request that the Board recalculate its Parole 

Violation Date Calculation and award me credit for the time I 

spent in prison which is a total of 21 months.

C.R. at 46 (emphasis added). Because Hodges does not contest the Board’s decision 

to refuse to credit him with the time spent at liberty on parole, he waived this 

argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 1551(a). Further, Hodges does not present an exception 

to the waiver rule to enable this Court to consider this issue. Hodges does not 

challenge the validity of the Code or the jurisdiction of the Board. See Price, 117 

A.3d at 365 (explaining that “the Board clearly has jurisdiction in parole matters to 

determine whether a parolee’s new criminal conviction warrants recommitment and 
7

a recalculation of a maximum sentence date”). Additionally, Hodges could have 

raised this challenge before the Board as, by his own words, “the Board decided not 

to award me credit for time I spent on liberty on parole.” C.R. at 45. Consequently, 

Hodges has not preserved this issue for consideration on appeal, and we will not 

address it. See Price, 117 A.3d at 365. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Eric Hodges, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 948 C.D. 2018

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2019, the June 13, 2018 order of 

the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is AFFIRMED. 

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge