IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lenton Rawls

, : Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Pennsylvania Board of : Probation and Parole, : No. 840 C

. D. 201 8 Respondent : Submitted: January 11 , 201 9

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 2 2 , 2019

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

Pennsylvania Board of P robation 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 e rr ed by not g ranting 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 1 1 / 2 to 3

-

year sentence for attempted burglary and attempted criminal trespass (Original

Sentence). Rawls’ O riginal S entence 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 author ity 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 or2 been released on your own recognizance from those charges.

If you violate a condition of your p arole/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 comm itted 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.

Certi fied 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 comm it 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 Ju ly 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 con victed parole violator (CPV), and den y 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 : “ T he [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 Rawl s ’ 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 assert s

that because he was returned to SCI

- Graterford on July 20, 2017, any time after that

date should be credited to his Original Sentence.

T his Court recognize s 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 c ustody 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 re lief 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 J uly

17, 2017

, and the Board recommit ted him as a CPV o n 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 56 3

.

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

. . . ). H ere, the Board’ s hearing report indicates the hearing exa miner obtaine d 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 T he 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 22 n d day of February , 201 9

, the Pennsylvania Board of

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

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge