J-S03002-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

LATEEF KHADEEN WATTS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MCGINLEY, 

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION 

AND PAROLE,

Appellees No. 2845 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered July 31, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0008178-2005

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 26, 2018

Lateef Khadeen Watts (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order 

entered on July 31, 2017, that dismissed his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus on the basis that Appellant’s maximum sentence had not yet expired 

and, therefore, the claims Appellant asserted did not fall within the trial 

court’s jurisdiction, citing Commonwealth, Department of Correction v.

Reese, 774 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2001). After review, we affirm. 

As stated verbatim in his brief, Appellant raises the following issues in 

this appeal:

[A.] Did the Common Pleas Court err in dismissing Appellant’s 

habeas Corpus Petition under the auspice that his original 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S03002-18

- 2 -

judgment of sentence was NOT completed, thus, misapplying the 

facts for which was presented, and dismissing his habeas Petition 

erroneously?

[B.] Did the court of Common Pleas err in dismissing Appellant 

Habeas Corpus Petition where he suffers a unconstitutional 

detention against a judicially imposed order issued by Delaware 

Count court of Common Pleas whereas Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole unconstitutionally altered his original 

maximum sentence without constitutional, statutory, and judicial 

authority, thus violating Appellant’s 14th, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 5th

Amendment rights y a continued forced incarceration? 

[C.] Whether the Court of Common Pleas err’d in dismissing 

Appellant’s Habeas Corpus Petition when his rights to the Due 

Process Clause “Liberty Interest” continues to be violated by 

Governmental State Agency, pursuant to both State and Federal 

Constitutional mandates? 

Appellant’s brief at 4. 

Despite Appellant’s statement of the issues that he attempts to raise in 

this appeal, the essence of his arguments centers on his allegation that the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) erred in recalculating his 

maximum release date, which this Court stated in Reese is not a proper use 

of a writ of habeas corpus. See Reese, 774 A.2d at 1261. Moreover, under 

the circumstances here, Appellant’s challenge should proceed through the 

PBPP’s administrative process with any appeal directed to the 

Commonwealth Court. See id. at 1260. 

We have reviewed the certified record, Appellant’s brief,1the 

applicable law, and the opinion authored by the Honorable James P. Bradley 

____________________________________________

1 The Commonwealth/PBPP has not submitted a brief in connection with this 

appeal. 
J-S03002-18

- 3 -

of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, dated September 20, 

2017. We conclude that Judge Bradley’s opinion accurately disposes of the 

arguments raised by Appellant on appeal and we discern no abuse of 

discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Bradley’s opinion as 

our own and affirm the July 31, 2017 order on that basis. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/26/18