IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Leroy Antonio Wilson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole,

1

: No. 63 C.D. 2020

Respondent : Submitted: June 19, 2020

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: July 29, 2020

Leroy Antonio Wilson (Wilson) petitions this Court for review of the 

Pennsylvania Parole Board’s (Board) January 8, 2020 order denying his request for 

administrative relief. Wilson presents two issues for this Court’s review: (1) whether 

the Board erred by failing to credit him for the time he served exclusively under the 

Board’s warrant and by using an incorrect return date in calculating his sentence; and 

(2) whether the Board abused its discretion by failing to credit Wilson for all of the

time he spent on parole in good standing. After review, we affirm.

Wilson is currently an inmate at the State Correctional Institution (SCI)-

Mahanoy. See Inmate Locator, PA. DEP’T OF CORR., http://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov 

 

1 Subsequent to the filing of the petition for review, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation 

and Parole was renamed the Pennsylvania Parole Board. See Sections 15, 16, and 16.1 of the Act of 

December 18, 2019, P.L. 776, No. 115 (effective February 18, 2020); see also Sections 6101 and 

6111(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code), as amended, 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101, 6111(a).
2

(last visited July 15, 2020). He has a long incarceration and parole/reparole history. 

See Certified Record (C.R.) 94-96. Relevant to this appeal, on March 21, 2012, the 

Montgomery County Common Pleas Court sentenced Wilson (Inmate #KL6650) to 2 

to 6 years in an SCI for drug violations and robbery (Original Sentence). See C.R. at 

3. On October 5, 2016, the Berks County Common Pleas Court sentenced Wilson to 

1 to 2 years in prison for theft of movable property (Berks County Sentence).

On June 2, 2017, the Board paroled Wilson from his Original Sentence

to a state detainer (i.e., the Berks County Sentence). See C.R. at 3. At that time, his 

maximum Original Sentence date was October 22, 2018. See C.R. at 3. Accordingly, 

when he began serving his Berks County Sentence, Wilson had 507 days remaining 

on his Original Sentence. See C.R. at 153. 

On December 7, 2017, the Board issued an order paroling Wilson from 

his Berks County Sentence subject to detainers and parole conditions. See C.R. at 10-

13, 15-22. He was released on parole on January 23, 2018. See C.R. at 14. At that 

time, his maximum Berks County Sentence date was January 23, 2019, so he had 365 

days remaining on his Berks County Sentence. See C.R. at 14.

On September 22, 2018, a criminal complaint was filed against Wilson

in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court (Montgomery County trial court), 

charging him with theft from a vehicle, receiving stolen property, driving under the 

influence of alcohol (DUI), DUI with a suspended license, and other moving 

violations committed on September 21, 2018 (New Charges). See C.R. at 23-29. On 

that same day, the Board issued a warrant to commit and detain Wilson. See C.R. at 

30. Wilson was unable to post the $10,000.00 monetary bail, and he was incarcerated 

at the Montgomery County Correctional Facility. See C.R. at 31, 38. 

On September 28, 2018, the Board issued a Notice of Charges 

scheduling a detention hearing on the New Charges for October 15, 2018. See C.R. 

at 33. On October 9, 2018, the Montgomery County trial court changed Wilson’s bail 
3

to $10,000.00 unsecured bail, and Wilson posted a bond that day. See C.R. at 39. On 

October 15, 2018, Wilson was transferred from the Montgomery County Correctional 

Facility to SCI-Phoenix. See C.R. at 42.

On December 6, 2018, the Board voted to continue detaining Wilson 

pending disposition of his New Charges. See C.R. at 48. The Board issued a notice 

of decision to that effect on December 12, 2018. See C.R. at 49.

On January 17, 2019, Wilson’s parole supervisors executed a Criminal 

Arrest and Disposition Report for the Board to declare Wilson delinquent for control 

purposes because his Berks County Sentence was to end on January 23, 2019. See 

C.R. at 51-52. The Board cancelled its September 22, 2018 detainer warrant on 

January 17, 2019. See C.R. at 50. On January 24, 2019, the Board issued a notice of 

decision referring to its December 12, 2018 action and declaring Wilson delinquent 

for control purposes effective September 21, 2018, when he was arrested on the New 

Charges. See C.R. at 53.

On February 28, 2019, Wilson pled guilty to DUI, DUI with a suspended 

license and theft. See C.R. at 54-55. He was sentenced to time served (from

September 22 to October 14, 2018 and from January 24 to February 28, 2019) to 24 

months in the Montgomery County Correctional Facility for the theft charge, to run 

concurrently with his previously imposed sentences (i.e., Original Sentence), plus 6 

months of probation for the DUI charge, and 60 days at a community corrections 

facility for the DUI with a suspended license charge with credit for time served (from 

September 22 to October 14, 2018 and from January 24 to February 28, 2019), which 

were to run concurrently with the theft sentence (New Sentence). See C.R. at 55.

On March 14, 2019, the Board received verification of Wilson’s New 

Sentence, issued a Notice of Charges and Hearing to revoke his parole based on the 

New Charges and, at Wilson’s request, scheduled a revocation hearing before a panel. 

See C.R. at 56-67. After being continued, the revocation hearing was conducted on 
4

May 30, 2019, during which Wilson was represented by counsel and acknowledged 

the New Charges. See C.R. at 75-76. During the hearing, Wilson admitted that he 

had difficulty adjusting while on parole. See C.R. at 75, 78-81. 

On June 13, 2019, the second panel member voted to recommit Wilson 

as a convicted parole violator (CPV).2 See C.R. at 85-92. According to the 

Revocation Hearing Report, the Board denied Wilson credit for time spent at liberty 

on parole. See C.R. at 88. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner Andrew Bevec 

(Bevec) denied Wilson street time credit “due to [his] poor supervision history, 

including multiple returns as a [technical parole violator] and CPV over the course of 

4 [Department of Corrections] #’s.” C.R. at 88. Board member Leo Dunn (Dunn) 

denied Wilson street time credit due to Wilson’s “[u]nresolved drug and alcohol 

issues[,]” and “[p]rior history of supervision failures[.]” C.R. at 88. 

By decision recorded June 21, 2019, the Board formally recommitted

Wilson to an SCI as a CPV “to serve 6 months of backtime, when available, pending 

parole from or completion of [his] [New Sentence].” C.R. at 118. 

On July 24, 2019, the Montgomery County trial court issued an order 

stating that the effective date of Wilson’s New Sentence was “January 24, 2019[,] 

with a minimum release date . . . of February 28, 2019[,]” and declaring that Wilson 

“shall be paroled [from the New Sentence] effective February 28, 2019.” C.R. at 

120.

By decision recorded July 25, 2019 (delivered July 31, 2019), the Board 

modified its June 21, 2019 action to correct a “technician error,” therein changing

 

2 Section 6113(b) of the Parole Code states, in relevant part: “The [B]oard may make 

decisions on . . . revocation in panels of two persons. A panel shall consist of one board member 

and one hearing examiner or of two board members.” 61 Pa.C.S. § 6113(b). “[T]he date that the 

revocation and recommitment Hearing Report was signed by the second panel member thereby 

effectively revok[ed] [Wilson’s] parole . . . .” Antwaun Raymoan Wilson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & 

Parole, 124 A.3d 767, 769 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).
5

Wilson’s inmate number, recalculating Wilson’s Original Sentence maximum release 

date to May 28, 2020, and declaring that the May 28, 2020 date was subject to 

change. See C.R. at 121-122.

By decision recorded August 1, 2019 (delivered August 6, 2019), the 

Board referred to its June 21 and July 25, 2019 actions to recommit Wilson as a CPV 

to serve 6 months of backtime, and added that “[t]he Board in its discretion does not 

award credit to [Wilson] for the time spent at liberty on parole for the following 

reasons: -- Unresolved drug and alcohol issues[, and] [p]rior history of supervision 

failures.” C.R. at 125. The Board recalculated Wilson’s Original Sentence maximum 

release date to August 28, 2020. See C.R. at 123-124, 126. 

On July 18, 2019, Wilson submitted an Administrative Remedies Form

challenging the Board’s June 21, 2019 decision, arguing that his Original Sentence 

maximum release date should be May 28, 2020. See C.R. at 127-130. Wilson also 

submitted a letter (dated August 3, 2019) to the Board and additional Administrative 

Remedies forms (which the Board received on August 19 and 26, 2019), making the 

same claims. See C.R. at 131-145. By September 23, 2019 letter, Wilson followed 

up with the Board regarding the status of his appeal. See C.R. at 146-152. By 

January 8, 2020 order, the Board denied Wilson’s request for administrative relief

and affirmed its August 1, 2019 decision (delivered August 6, 2019). Wilson 

appealed to this Court.3

Preliminarily, Section 6138(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole 

Code) specifies, in relevant part:

 

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.’” Kazickas v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. &

Parole, 226 A.3d 109, 115 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (quoting Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 62 

A.3d 1073, 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)).
6

(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, except as provided under 

paragraph (2.1), shall be given no credit for the time at 

liberty on parole.

(2.1) The [B]oard may, in its discretion, award credit to a 

parolee recommitted under paragraph (2) for the time spent 

at liberty on parole, unless any of the following apply:[4]

(i) The crime committed during the period of parole 

or while delinquent on parole is a crime of violence 

as defined in [Section 9714(g) of the Sentencing

Code,] 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(g) (relating to sentences 

for second and subsequent offenses) or a crime 

requiring registration under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 97 

Subch. H (relating to registration of sexual 

offenders).

(ii) The parolee was recommitted under [S]ection 

6143 [of the Parole Code, 61 Pa.C.S. § 6143] 

(relating to early parole of inmates subject to 

[f]ederal removal order).

. . . .

(4) The 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 parole violator.

 

4 Because Wilson was not recommitted for reasons enumerated in Section 6138(a)(2.1)(i)

and (ii) of the Parole Code, the Board had the discretion to award Wilson street time credit if it so 

desired.
7

(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 [s]tate correctional 

institution and the new sentence imposed on the 

person is to be served in the [s]tate 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).

Wilson argues that the Board erred by failing to credit him for the time 

he served exclusively under the Board’s warrant and by using an incorrect return date 

in calculating his sentence. Wilson specifically avers: 

The [Board] failed to give [Wilson] credit for the date of his 

parole pursuant to the time served sentencing order on 

February 28, 2019 to the date [it] listed as the custody for 

return of July 24, 2019; a period of 146 days. Subtracting 

the 148 [sic] days from the August 28, 2020 maximum 

sentence date calculated by the [Board] results in a 

maximum sentence date of April 2, 2020.

[5] This date does 

not consider backtime credit for service in good standing on 

parole.

. . . .

The day [Wilson] pled guilty and received a time served 

sentence [(i.e., February 28, 2019)] he was available to be 

turned over to the warrant of the [Board].

Wilson Br. at 11-12. 

 

5 Subtracting 146 days from the August 28, 2020 would be April 4, 2020.
8

However, notwithstanding that the Montgomery County trial court’s July

24, 2019 order declared that Wilson “shall be paroled [from the New Sentence] 

effective February 28, 2019[,]” C.R. at 120, he was not entitled to credit toward his 

Original Sentence prior to July 24, 2019. This Court has ruled that the Board need 

not “recomput[e] [a parolee’s] backtime based on the orders of the sentencing court 

setting retroactive parole dates . . . [,]” because “a common pleas court, through the 

use of retroactive parole, may not do indirectly what it is powerless to do directly; 

namely, make a portion of [a parolee’s] Board[-]imposed backtime run concurrently 

with a newly imposed county sentence.” Bailey v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 591 

A.2d 778, 781 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991); see also Vann v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Pa. 

Cmwlth. No. 1067 C.D. 2017, filed April 10, 2018).6 Because the Montgomery 

County trial court’s February 28, 2019 parole date was a nullity, Wilson became

available to serve his backtime on July 24, 2019. 

The Board explained in its January 8, 2020 order:

The Board paroled Wilson from a[n] [SCI] under [Inmate #]

KL6650 to a state detainer sentence on June 2, 2017 with a 

max date of October 22, 2018[,] leaving him with 507 days 

remaining on his [Original Sentence] the day he was 

paroled. He paroled to [his Berks County Sentence] and 

was subsequently paroled by the Board on January 23, 2018 

with a max date of January 23, 2019, leaving 365 days 

remaining on that [Berks County Sentence] the day he was 

released. Wilson is not entitled to credit toward his 

[Original Sentence] from June 2, 2017 to January 23, 2019 

because he is not entitled to credit for the time spent at 

liberty on parole from his [Original Sentence,] even if he is 

paroled to a detainer sentence. Rosenberger v. 

Commonwealth of P[a.], 510 A.2d 866 (Pa. 1986). The 

Board’s decision to recommit Wilson as a [CPV] authorized 

 

6 This Court acknowledges that its unreported memorandum opinions may only be cited “for 

[their] persuasive value, but not as binding precedent.” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth 

Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). Accordingly, the unreported 

opinions cited herein are cited for their persuasive value.
9

the recalculation of his max date to reflect that he received

no credit for the time spent at liberty on parole. 61 Pa.C.S. 

§ 6138(a)(2). The [B]oard denied Wilson credit for time 

spent at liberty on parole in this instance, thus, he owed 507 

days as a [CPV].

The record shows that on September 22, 2018, Wilson was 

arrested on a [B]oard detainer and by local authorities in 

Montgomery County for new criminal charges. Bail was 

changed to unsecured on October 9, 2018 and[,] on January 

23, 2019, the [B]oard detainer was lifted. On February 28, 

2019, Wilson was sentenced in [the] Montgomery County 

Court of Common Pleas to a new term of incarceration to 

be served in a county prison. On April 23, 2019, a [B]oard 

detainer was re-lodged against Wilson to commence 

revocation proceedings. On July 24, 2019, the Board 

received an order to parole Wilson from his [New 

Sentence].

Based on the above facts, Wilson is entitled to 106 days of 

pre-sentence credit from October 9, 2018 to January 23, 

2019 because he was solely incarcerated on the [B]oard 

detainer during that period. Gaito v. Pa. B[d.] of Prob[.]

[&] Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980). Subtracting 106 days 

from 507 days leaves Wilson with 401 days remaining on 

his [Original Sentence]. . . . Because he was sentenced to 

county incarceration, he [had to] complete his county 

sentence first before becoming available to commence 

service of his [Original Sentence]. 61 Pa. C.S. § 

6138(a)(5). Thus, Wilson became available on July 24,

2019, the day the judge paroled him from his [New 

Sentence]. The earlier parole date on the court order cannot 

be honored because the Board cannot recognize the 

retroactive parole. Patrick v. Commonwealth of P[a.], 532 

A.2d 487 (Pa. 1987). Adding 401 days to Wilson’s July 24, 

2019 availability date yields a recalculated [Original 

Sentence] date of August 28, 2020.

C.R. at 153-154. Accordingly, the Board properly credited Wilson for the time he 

served exclusively under the Board’s warrant and did not use an incorrect return date 

in calculating his sentence.
10

Wilson also contends that the Board abused its discretion by failing to 

credit him for all of the time he spent on parole in good standing. Specifically, 

Wilson claims that the Board’s June 21, 2019 order initially revoking his parole “did 

not state [Wilson] would not receive credit for time served in good standing on 

parole[,]” Wilson Br. at 12, and that the Board failed to mention credit until it issued 

its August 1, 2019 order (delivered August 6, 2019). See Wilson Br. at 13. Wilson 

further asserts that the Board’s explanation for refusing to grant him street time credit 

(i.e., “unresolved drug and alcohol issues” and “prior history of supervision 

failures[,]” see C.R. at 125) were not legitimate and were impermissibly vague. See 

Wilson Br. at 13.

In Pittman [v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 

159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017)], our Supreme Court explained 

that, when the [Board] exercises its discretion under Section 

6138(a)(2.1) [of the Parole Code], it ‘must articulate the 

basis for its decision to grant or deny a [CPV] credit for 

time served at liberty on parole.’ [Pittman,] 159 A.3d at 

474. 

Smoak v. Talaber, 193 A.3d 1160, 1164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

Regarding Wilson’s claim that the Board erred by failing to reference the 

reason it denied him street time credit in its June 21, 2019 recommitment order, this 

Court acknowledges the Pittman Court specified that “the Board must provide a 

contemporaneous statement explaining its reason for denying a CPV credit for time 

spent at liberty on parole.” Pittman, 159 A.3d at 475. Although, ideally, the Board 

should state its reason(s) for denying street time credit in its decision formally 

recommitting a parolee, this Court has declined to overturn a Board’s recommitment 

decision for failing to do so. Rather, this Court has remanded such cases for the 

Board to articulate its reasoning after the fact. See Smoak, 193 A.3d at 1164 (“The 

[Board] must issue a contemporaneous statement of reasons as to why it denied a 

[CPV] credit for time spent at liberty on parole; where the Board fails to do so, this 
11

Court will remand for the Board to set forth its reasons.”); see also McGrath v. Pa. 

Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 712 C.D. 2018, filed October 10, 2019); 

Dopson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 839 C.D. 2018, filed May 7, 

2019); Green v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 725 C.D. 2017, filed 

April 19, 2018); Anderson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 171 A.3d 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2017). 

Here, Bevec and Dunn supplied explanations in the Revocation Hearing 

Report contemporaneous with their determination not to credit Wilson with time he 

spent at liberty on parole, see C.R. at 88, and the Board amended its June 21, 2019 

order on August 1, 2019 (delivered August 6, 2019), see Smoak,

7

to include those

reasons. Moreover, this Court has concluded that the reasons specified in the Board’s 

revocation hearing report are sufficient to satisfy the Board’s Pittman mandate. See

Johnson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 206 A.3d 88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). 

Accordingly, the Board satisfied Pittman. 

Relative to Wilson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the Board’s reason 

for denying him credit for time spent in good standing on parole, this Court has 

explained:

Pittman requires the Board to articulate a reason for 

exercising its discretion to deny credit for street time 

because ‘an appellate court hearing the matter must have [a] 

method to assess the Board’s exercise of discretion.’ Id. at 

 

7 The Smoak Court held: 

[T]his matter does not need to be remanded to the [] Board to correct 

the error [of the Board’s failure to record any reason for its decision to 

deny the parolee street time credit in the recommitment order] 

because the [] Board, after receiving [the parolee’s] administrative 

appeal, corrected its omission by modifying the recommitment order 

to include its reason for denying [the parolee] credit for his street 

time. 

Id. at 1164.
12

474. To meet the constitutional guarantees of due process, 

an agency’s decision must be explained ‘in sufficient detail 

to permit meaningful appellate review.’ Fisler v. State Sys. 

of Higher Educ., Cal. Univ. of Pa., 78 A.3d 30, 41 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2013) (quoting Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. 

of Review, . . . 501 A.2d 1383, 1389 ([Pa.] 1985)). There 

must be safeguards to ensure against arbitrary decisionmaking. Peak.

Marshall v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 200 A.3d 643, 651 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 

However, “[t]he [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court noted [in Pittman] that ‘the reason 

the Board gives does not have to be extensive and a single sentence explanation is 

likely sufficient in most instances.’ [Pittman, 159 A.3d] at 475 n.12.” Smoak, 193 

A.3d at 1164 (emphasis added).

Further, in Smoak, this Court concluded that “unresolved drug and 

alcohol issues” was a sufficient explanation for the Board to deny a parolee street 

time credit. Id. at 1165. In Vann, this Court expressly ruled:

[T]he Board sufficiently articulated its rationale for refusing 

to award [the parolee] credit for time at liberty on parole. 

The Board cited [the parolee’s] ‘prior history of supervision 

failures,’ as well as ‘unresolved drug and alcohol issues.’ 

The Board’s rationale does not, as [the parolee] contends, 

leave him and counsel with ‘no idea what specific acts are 

being alluded to by the Board.’ In fact, [the parolee’s] 

difficulty in complying with supervision and remaining 

drug and alcohol free are documented in the record.

Slip op. at 18 (internal citations omitted).

Because it is evident from this Court’s review of the record in the instant 

matter that the Board was well aware of Wilson’s confinement and parole history, 

and Wilson acknowledged at the May 30, 2019 revocation hearing that he had

difficulty on parole, the Board’s explanation for refusing to grant Wilson street time 

credit – “unresolved drug and alcohol issues” and “prior history of supervision 

failures[,]” see C.R. at 125 – was legitimate and not impermissibly vague. 
13

Accordingly, the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying Wilson credit for all 

of the time he spent on parole in good standing.

Based on the foregoing, the Board’s order is affirmed.

 ___________________________

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

Leroy Antonio Wilson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 63 C.D. 2020

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2020, the Pennsylvania Parole Board’s 

January 8, 2020 order is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge