IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lenton Rawls, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 840 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 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: February 22, 2019

Lenton Rawls (Rawls) petitions this Court for review of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s (Board) May 22, 2018 decision 

denying his request for administrative relief. Rawls presents one issue for this 

Court’s review: whether the Board erred by not granting Rawls credit for the time he 

was in custody from July 20, 2017 to October 2, 2017. After review, we affirm.

Rawls is currently an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional 

Institution (SCI) at Somerset. On August 21, 2015, he was paroled from a 11/2 to 3-

year sentence for attempted burglary and attempted criminal trespass (Original 

Sentence). Rawls’ Original Sentence maximum release date was May 27, 2017. 

Before his release on parole, Rawls agreed to conditions governing his parole, 

including:

If you are arrested on new criminal charges, the Board has 

the authority to lodge a detainer against you which will 

prevent your release from custody, pending disposition of 

those charges, even though you may have posted bail or 
2

been released on your own recognizance from those 

charges.

If you violate a condition of your parole/reparole and, after 

the appropriate hearing(s), the Board decides that you are in 

violation of a condition of your parole/reparole you may be 

recommitted to prison for such time as may be specified by 

the Board. 

If you are convicted of a crime committed while on 

parole/reparole, the Board has the authority, after an 

appropriate hearing, to recommit you to serve the balance of 

the sentence or sentences which you were serving when 

paroled/reparoled, with no credit for time at liberty on 

parole.

Certified Record (C.R.) at 7. Rawls did not object to the above-quoted parole 

conditions. 

On February 25, 2017, Philadelphia police arrested Rawls for burglary, 

criminal trespass and related charges. On February 26, 2017, the Board lodged a 

detainer to commit and detain Rawls. On June 15, 2017, the Board cancelled the 

detainer. On July 17, 2017, Rawls pled guilty to burglary and was sentenced to 2 to 4 

years of incarceration. On July 19, 2017, the Board lodged a detainer to commit and 

detain Rawls. On July 20, 2017, Rawls was returned to SCI-Graterford. On 

September 7, 2017, Rawls signed a waiver of his rights to a revocation hearing and 

counsel. 

On October 2, 2017, the second panel member voted to accept Rawls’ 

hearing waiver, recommit Rawls as a convicted parole violator (CPV), and deny him 

credit for time spent at liberty on parole.1 See C.R. at 39. By decision recorded 

January 16, 2018 (mailed January 30, 2018), the Board formally recommitted Rawls 

 

1 Section 6113(b) of the Prisons and 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).
3

as a CPV to serve his unexpired term of 1 year, 5 months and 28 days. By January 

16, 2018 recommitment order, the Board recalculated Rawls’ Original Sentence 

maximum release date to March 31, 2019. See C.R. at 54. 

On February 5, 2018, Rawls submitted an Administrative Remedies 

Form challenging the Board’s decision recorded January 16, 2018 (mailed January 

30, 2018), which formally recommitted Rawls as a CPV. On May 22, 2018, the 

Board denied Rawls’ request for administrative relief. Rawls appealed to this Court.2

Rawls argues that the Board erred by not giving him credit on his 

Original Sentence from July 20, 2017 to October 2, 2017. Specifically, Rawls asserts

that because he was returned to SCI-Graterford on July 20, 2017, any time after that 

date should be credited to his Original Sentence.

This Court recognizes that Section 6138(a)(4) of the Prisons and Parole 

Code (Parole Code) provides: “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[,]”

61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(4), and “[CPVs] must serve the backtime on their original state 

sentence before they can begin to serve time on their newly-imposed state sentence 

under Section 6138(a) of the Code.” Wilson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 124 A.3d 

767, 769 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 

However,

[u]nder Campbell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation [&] 

Parole, . . . 409 A.2d 980 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1980) and Hill v. 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation [&] Parole, 683 A.2d 699 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), the general rule applied in calculations 

of minimum and maximum release dates is that the Board 

 

2

“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.” Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & 

Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
4

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 . . . to the new 

sentence.

Plummer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 926 A.2d 561, 563 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)

(emphasis added); Wilson. 

Here, Rawls pled guilty and was sentenced on the new charges on July 

17, 2017, and the Board recommitted him as a CPV on October 2, 2017.

3 See C.R. at 

39. Thus, the time Rawls spent in custody from July 20, 2017 (the date he was 

returned to SCI-Graterford) to October 2, 2017 “must” be credited to his new 

sentence. Plummer, 926 A.2d at 563. 

Moreover,

a parole violator’s new maximum date is calculated from 

the date on which the Board obtained the second signature 

needed to recommit him as a CPV. Wilson (citing 

Campbell . . . ). Here, the Board’s hearing report indicates 

the hearing examiner obtained a second signature for 

[Rawls’] recommitment on [October 2, 2017]. C.R. at [39]. 

As such, [Rawls’] new maximum expiry must be calculated 

from that date. Wilson; Campbell.

Palmer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 134 A.3d 160, 166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 

Accordingly, the Board properly denied Rawls credit on his Original Sentence for the 

time he was in custody from July 20, 2017 to October 2, 2017.

For all of the above reasons, the Board’s decision is affirmed.

 

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

 

3 The second panel member voted to recommit Rawls as a CPV on October 2, 2017. See 

C.R. at 39. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lenton Rawls, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, : No. 840 C.D. 2018

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2019, the Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole’s May 22, 2018 decision is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge