J

- S0300 2

- 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 O F PROBATION AND PAROLE , Appellees No. 2 845 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. Su per. 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

-

judgm ent 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 unconstitutio nal 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 auth ority, thus violating Appellant’s 14 th , 4 th , 5 th , 8 th , and 5 th 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 ess ence of his arguments center s 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.2 d 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, 1 the
applicable law, and the opinion authored by the Honorable James P. Bradley

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 The Commonwealth/PBPP has not submitted a brief in connection wit h 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 Appel lant on appeal and we d iscern 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