J-S34038-23

2023 PA Super 216

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TYLER BLAINE RALING 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1430 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered November 3, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at CP-02-CR-0006296-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

OPINION BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 26, 2023

Tyler Blaine Raling (Appellant) appeals from the order denying his 

motion for parole, entered after the trial court’s retention of parole

jurisdiction.1 We affirm.

____________________________________________

1 An order denying a motion for parole is appealable as a final order under 

Pa.R.A.P. 341. See Commonwealth v. Becker, 172 A.3d 35, 37 (Pa. Super. 

2017) (affirming trial court’s order “denying [appellant’s] petition for 

immediate parole.”); see also 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3815 (governing mandatory 

sentencing and the power of a sentencing judge to parole offenders sentenced 

to incarceration in a county jail for driving under the influence (DUI));

Commonwealth v. McDermott, 547 A.2d 1236, 1239 (Pa. Super. 1988)

(“When an offender is sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of less 

than two years, the common pleas court retains authority to grant and revoke 

parole....”).
J-S34038-23

- 2 -

Appellant had pled guilty to DUI (controlled substance)

2 and possession 

of a controlled substance.

3

 The trial court detailed the underlying facts as 

follows:

Officers of the City of Pittsburgh Police Department were 

dispatched to the intersection of PJ McArdle Roadway at the 

Liberty Bridge at 5:30 p.m. [on February 16, 2022,] for a report 

of a driver slumped over the wheel of his vehicle. When officers 

arrived on scene, they observed [Appellant] stopped at the red 

[traffic signal] at the intersection[,] slumped over the wheel. 

[Appellant] abruptly woke up after being initially unresponsive. 

[The officers] determined that [Appellant] had an outstanding 

warrant from Westmoreland County for a parole violation[. The 

officers performed] a search incident to arrest [of Appellant’s 

person. The search revealed Appellant was] in possession of 

twelve (12) stamp bags of heroin and a hypodermic syringe. 

[Appellant] was transported to UPMC Mercy hospital[,] where 

standardized field sobriety tests were given[. Appellant] later 

consented to a blood draw [at the hospital]. [Appellant’s] blood 

was turned over to the Allegheny County Crime Lab for testing[. 

The test] yielded positive results for cocaine, fentanyl and 

cannabinoids.

Prior to this arrest, [Appellant] had been charged in a 

separate case with two (2) counts of [DUI,] ... along with various 

motor vehicle violations in Butler County. 

[Appellant] had completed his [Court Reporting Network

(CRN)4] evaluation on January 25, 2022[. Appellant completed]

his drug and alcohol assessment through Mercy Behavioral Health 

on January 26, 2022, which deemed [Appellant] in need of [a]

“higher level of care.” When [Appellant] appeared before th[e 

trial] court on August 18, 2022 [(plea/sentencing hearing)], he 

had pled guilty and was sentenced in Butler County on [the above 

____________________________________________

2 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1).

3 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).

4 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3816(a) (governing CRN evaluation).
J-S34038-23

- 3 -

DUI] ... charge[,] which resulted in the instant case becoming 

[Appellant’s] third [DUI] offense and graded as a felony of the

[third] degree. [On August 18, 2022, Appellant] pled guilty to ... 

[DUI. The trial court immediately] sentenced [Appellant5] to a

period of one (1) to seven (7) years of incarceration to be served 

in the Allegheny County Jail[,] with permission for alternative 

housing and with th[e trial] court retaining parole jurisdiction. 

[See McDermott, supra. Appellant] was further sentenced at 

[his conviction of] possession of a controlled substance ... to a 

period of eighteen (18) months’ probation[,] to run concurrently 

to the sentence imposed [on Appellant’s DUI conviction].

1 

[Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or an appeal.]

1 [Appellant] was given credit for time served of a total

of 394 days. [Appellant’s] minimum sentence expired

July 20, 2022.

Parole petitions [regarding Appellant] were submitted by 

the Allegheny County Jail on August 29, 2022 and September 23, 

2022, both of which [did] not recommend[] parole due to

[Appellant’s] various [jail] infractions[. The trial court found] the 

most serious [infraction of Appellant his] “being in possession of 

major contraband (an illegal drug-controlled substance or 

narcotic).” [Appellant], through counsel, filed a petition for parole 

on September 30, 2022, which was [] denied by th[e trial] court 

on November [3], 2022. 

Trial Court Opinion, 2/15/23, at 1-3 (unnumbered) (one footnote in original;

____________________________________________

5 As discussed further below, prior to sentencing, the defense made an oral 

motion for immediate parole, emphasizing that Appellant’s minimum sentence 

had expired before sentencing. N.T., 8/18/22, at 10. The trial court denied 

the motion. Id. at 12, 21-22. 
J-S34038-23

- 4 -

two footnotes added; some capitalization and citations modified).6

On December 2, 2022, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On April 26, 

2023, this Court issued a rule on Appellant to show cause (RTSC) why we 

should not quash the appeal as untimely filed. RTSC, 4/26/23, at 2 (observing 

Appellant filed the notice of appeal more than 30 days after the trial court’s 

November 3, 2022 order, and citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(3) (“If the defendant 

does not file a timely post-sentence motion, the defendant’s notice of appeal 

shall be filed within 30 days of imposition of sentence”)). 

Appellant filed a response stating he

is not appealing from []his judgment of sentence. He is not 

seeking to withdraw or somehow change his plea, nor is he 

appealing the sentence imposed. Rather, his appeal solely 

concerns the order [entered] November [3], 2022,

[7] which denied 

____________________________________________

6 The trial court also explained: 

On October 13, 2022, [Appellant] was transferred to alternative 

housing “Passages to Recovery[.” That same date,] a subsequent 

parole petition filed by the Allegheny County Jail indicated 

[Appellant] had begun various treatment goals, had zero [jail] 

misconducts and parole was not being recommended as 

[Appellant] had “not yet completed his treatment goals.” 

[Appellant’s] parole was again denied on November 16, 2022. On 

January 13, 2023, [Appellant] was returned to the Allegheny

[County] Jail from Passages to Recovery for admission to 

substance abuse [counseling] and diverting medication. 

Trial Court Opinion, 2/15/23, at 3 (unnumbered). Appellant did not appeal 

the November 16, 2022, order.

7 Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal in this Court on April 27, 2023. 

Appellant clarified that he is appealing the November 3, 2022 order denying 

his motion for parole. Amended Notice of Appeal, 4/27/23.
J-S34038-23

- 5 -

[Appellant’s] counselled motion for parole filed on September 30, 

2022. We thus believe that the appeal is currently properly before 

this Court.

Response to RTSC, 4/27/23, at 2 (footnote added; emphasis omitted; some 

capitalization modified). On May 5, 2023, this Court discharged the RTSC and 

referred the matter to the merits panel.

Appellant presents a single issue:

1. Did the trial court err by denying [Appellant’s] request for 

parole after completion of his minimum sentence because he 

had not yet completed treatment for his drug and/or alcohol 

addiction?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.8

Preliminarily, Appellant states he

is not challenging the ultimate determination of whether he was 

entitled to parole on the basis of [Appellant’s] motion denied by 

the November [3, 2022, o]rder. Instead, [Appellant] is appealing 

the trial court’s determination that parole was statutorily not 

available to [Appellant] until he had completed drug and alcohol 

treatment. This is an incorrect statement of the law pertaining to 

the availability of parole.

Appellant’s Brief at 15 (italics in original). Appellant maintains his issue 

presents a question of law, to which appellate courts apply a de novo standard 

of review and a plenary scope of review. Id. at 3 (citing Commonwealth v. 

Finley, 135 A.3d 196, 199 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“an examination of the 

requirements for sentences of total confinement and parole eligibility set forth 

in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756 ... [implicates] statutory interpretation, which is a 

____________________________________________

8 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J-S34038-23

- 6 -

question of law. Accordingly, as with all questions of law, our scope of review 

is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.”)).

The Commonwealth counters that this Court must apply an abuse of 

discretion standard of review:

Appellant did not appeal the trial court’s decision to deny him 

parole at the [plea/sentencing hearing] on August 18, 2022, which 

is the proceeding where the disputed statements by the trial court 

regarding [Appellant’s] eligibility for parole were made. Instead,

Appellant is challenging the basis for the November [3, 2022,] 

order, which the record establishes was a discretionary decision 

made by the trial court after several subsequent parole petitions 

were filed that included information about Appellant’s progress in 

the Allegheny County Jail.

Commonwealth Brief at 10 n.2 (some capitalization modified); see also id. at 

2. We agree.

We review Appellant’s claim for an abuse of discretion. Becker, 172 

A.3d at 39 (“When the defendant is eligible for parole, the trial court’s decision 

to [deny or] grant parole is a discretionary act, and it is subject to appellate 

review under an abuse of discretion standard.” (citation omitted)).

An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if

in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or

the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result

of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence

or the record, discretion is abused.

Commonwealth v. Jackson, 283 A.3d 814, 817 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation 

and brackets omitted).

Furthermore:

Parole is nothing more than a possibility, and, when granted, it is 

nothing more than a favor granted upon a prisoner by the state 
J-S34038-23

- 7 -

as a matter of grace and mercy shown by the Commonwealth to 

a convict who has demonstrated a probability of his ability to 

function as a law-abiding citizen in society.

Becker, 172 A.3d at 38-39 (citation omitted).

Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining at the 

plea/sentencing hearing,

9

that he was not statutorily eligible for parole

because he did not complete court-ordered drug and alcohol treatment. See

Appellant’s Brief at 9-29; see also N.T., 8/18/22, at 12, 21-22 (trial court 

denying Appellant’s oral motion for parole). Appellant cites 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 

3815, which provides: 

____________________________________________

9 The following exchange occurred between the trial court and Appellant’s 

counsel:

[Counsel]: ... [The defense is] asking for a sentence today of one 

to seven years, credit for time served, and we’re ultimately asking 

Your Honor to parole [Appellant] forthwith. ...

THE COURT: I can tell you I can parole [Appellant] per the 

statute, when I get papers that show that he’s completed. The 

statute is very specific, the conditions under which someone can 

be paroled. But if he meets that, I can parole him.

* * *

[Counsel]: [Appellant has] asked if he’s going to be able to leave 

to [sic] Westmoreland County. That’s correct; right? He’s paroled 

on this case?

THE COURT: No, he’s not paroled on this case. I can only parole 

him per the statute.

N.T., 8/18/22, at 10, 22 (although the trial court did not identify “the statute,” 

it appears the court was referencing 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3815, which we discuss 

below).
J-S34038-23

- 8 -

An offender who is determined pursuant to section 3814 (relating 

to drug and alcohol assessments) to be in need of drug and alcohol 

treatment shall be eligible for parole in accordance with the terms 

and conditions prescribed in this section following the 

expiration of the offender’s mandatory minimum term of 

imprisonment.

Id. § 3815(b)(1) (emphasis added); Appellant’s Brief at 18-19, 21; 

Appellant’s Reply Brief at 4.

10

Appellant concedes a sentencing court 

may not be inclined to grant parole if a defendant is in the throes 

of drug and alcohol addiction and treatment; the court may find 

that parole is not in the defendant’s best interests and deny the 

request. But that doesn’t mean that it has no authority to even 

consider the notion.

Appellant’s Brief at 3-4. 

To the contrary, the Commonwealth asserts,

even if one were to assume for the sake of argument that 

Appellant were correct that the trial court[] misapprehended the 

law concerning his technical eligibility for parole at the August 18, 

2022[, plea/sentencing hearing], Appellant’s claim nevertheless 

fails because the subsequent proceedings belie Appellant’s 

argument on appeal about why he was denied parole on 

November [3], 2022. In that regard, the trial court’s order

denying [Appellant] parole ... and the trial court’s subsequent

opinion for this appeal articulated reasons for denying Appellant’s 

[motion for] parole that were completely within the trial court’s 

discretion and not the sole product of a misinterpretation of the 

law, as Appellant now argues in his brief.

Commonwealth Brief at 14. Again, we agree.

____________________________________________

10 In his reply brief, Appellant states that “as of the date of writing this reply 

brief, [Appellant] has been granted parole.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 3 (filed 

August 21, 2023).
J-S34038-23

- 9 -

As the trial court explained:

This court[,] recognizing the limits available for sentencing 

purposes if [Appellant] were to violate the terms of his parole or 

to reoffend[,] believes it to be in [Appellant’s] best interest to 

complete treatment afforded to him while incarcerated and be 

recommended for parole. This court recognizes that a sentencing 

judge that has retained jurisdiction may grant parole under [75 

Pa.C.S.A.] § 3815 when an offender is eligible following the 

expiration of the offender’s mandatory minimum term of 

imprisonment.

[Appellant] received the minimum sentence, was given 

credit for the same time credited to the case in Butler County and 

was upset when this court would not [grant his oral motion to]

parole him forthwith at the time of sentencing. This court will not 

grant parole except upon written petition. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9776

[(“No inmate may be paroled under this section except on petition 

... filed in the court in which the inmate was convicted.” Id. § 

9776(b) (emphasis added)).] [Appellant] is thirty (30) years old 

and at the time of the two (2) pending [DUI] charges (both in 

Allegheny and Butler Counties), had nineteen (19) prior 

convictions for various drug and drug[-]related offenses[. 

Appellant also] had numerous probation and parole violations in 

multiple counties. [Appellant] has not been able to meet his 

treatment goals, follow rules, or abstain from abusing drugs while 

in the Allegheny County Jail and in alternative housing.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/15/23, at 2-3 (unnumbered) (emphasis in original).

The trial court’s reasoning is supported by the record and the law. 

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for parole.

Order affirmed.

Judge Lazarus joins the opinion.

Judge Stabile concurs in the result.
J-S34038-23

- 10 -

Date: 10/26/2023