IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Nakia William Garrus, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 1271 C.D. 2021 

:

Pennsylvania Parole Board, : Submitted: November 4, 2022 

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: November 16, 2023

Nakia William Garrus (Petitioner) petitions for review of the 

Pennsylvania Parole Board’s (Board) decision mailed October 14, 2021, which denied 

and dismissed his second, third and fourth requests for administrative relief from the 

Board’s order, recorded September 19, 2019, recalculating his maximum sentence date 

of November 30, 2022. In addition, David Crowley, Esquire (Counsel), Petitioner’s 

court-appointed public defender, has filed an Application to Withdraw on the basis that 

the appeal is frivolous and lacks merit. Upon review, we dismiss Petitioner’s Petition 

for Review (PFR) and Counsel’s Application to Withdraw as moot. 

I. Facts and Procedural History

In May 2001, Petitioner was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and 

sentenced to 25 to 50 years’ confinement. (Certified Record (C.R.) at 1.) On May 28, 

2013, Petitioner was resentenced to 10 to 20 years’ confinement. (C.R. at 4.) At the 
2

time of his resentencing, Petitioner’s maximum sentence date was April 6, 2020. (C.R. 

at 5.) 

On September 8, 2015, the Board paroled Petitioner to a community 

corrections facility (CCF). Id. at 13. On March 14, 2016, he was recommitted to serve 

6 months’ backtime as a technical parole violator (TPV) for acting in an assaultive 

manner toward a parole officer during intake after his release from the CCF. Id. at 1. 

He was reparoled on August 26, 2016. Id. at 75. 

On October 21, 2018, Petitioner was arrested for unsworn falsification to 

authorities, false identification to law enforcement, retail theft and receipt of stolen 

property. Id. at 44-43, 50. The Board lodged a detainer against Petitioner that same 

day. Id. at 39. Petitioner posted bail on the new charges on October 29, 2018. Id. at 

43. In a decision recorded January 14, 2019, the Board detained Petitioner pending 

disposition of the new charges, recommitted him as a TPV for nine months for 

changing his residence without permission, and granted him reparole after six months 

if he successfully completed prescribed programs. Id. at 64. On February 13, 2019, 

Petitioner filed an administrative remedy form with the Board challenging the Board’s 

January 14, 2019 decision recommitting him as a TPV. Id. at 99.

On January 16, 2019, Petitioner pleaded guilty to unsworn falsification to

authorities and the remaining charges were nolle prossed. Id. at 67. The sentencing 

court sentenced Petitioner to time served to 23 months. Id. at 68. The Board credited 

Petitioner’s original sentence for the time he spent incarcerated before posting bail, i.e., 

October 21, 2018 to October 29, 2018.

On April 4, 2019, the Board notified Petitioner that it was charging him 

as a convicted parole violator (CPV), due to his new conviction. Petitioner waived his 

rights to counsel and a revocation hearing. Id. at 71. By decision recorded May 15,
3

2019, the Board modified and deleted the reparole portion of its January 14, 2019 order. 

Id. at 87. The Board recommitted Petitioner to serve 9 months’ backtime as a TPV and 

12 months’ backtime as a CPV, for a total of 21 months’ backtime. The Board based 

its backtime assessment on Petitioner’s poor adjustment under supervision, early 

failure of parole and reparole, failure to comply with sanctions, his declaration of 

delinquency and his prior parole failures. The Board recalculated Petitioner’s original 

sentence maximum release date to April 13, 2022, but stated it was subject to change. 

Id. at 87-88.

On June 13, 2019, Petitioner filed an administrative remedies form 

challenging the Board’s May 15, 2019 decision increasing his backtime in light of his 

designation as a CPV. Id. at 101. On June 20, 2019, he filed a petition for 

administrative remedies with the Board challenging the Board’s January 14, 2019 and 

May 15, 2019 decisions, and requesting that his original maximum release date be 

recalculated because his backtime should be served concurrently with his new 

sentence. Id. at 103-07. On July 5, 2019, he filed an “administrative appeal letter” 

again claiming that the Board erred in recalculating his backtime. Id. at 112-13. 

On September 4, 2019, the sentencing court entered an order paroling 

Petitioner on Bill #7245-18, effective January 16, 2019. Id. at 85. By decision dated 

September 19, 2019, the Board restated its May 15, 2019 decision and added that 

Petitioner would not receive credit for the time spent at liberty on parole because he 

previously absconded while under supervision. Id. at 91. The Board credited Petitioner 

for time he spent in pretrial custody solely on the Board’s warrant from October 29, 

2018, to January 16, 2019. Id. On October 7, 2019 the Huntington County Public 

Defender filed an administrative appeal from the September 19, 2019 recommitment 

challenging the recalculation of the maximum date. Id. at 140. On January 22, 2020, 
4

Petitioner filed another administrative appeal from the May 15, 2019 recommitment 

decision. Id. at 129-30. On that same date, January 22, 2020, the Board entered a 

decision rescinding the Board action of January 14, 2019, due to receipt of additional 

information and modifying the Board actions of May 15, 2019 and September 19, 2019, 

by removing all references to the Board’s action dated January 14, 2019, to recommit 

him as a TPV to serve 9 months’ backtime. Id. at 96. On January 23, 2020, the Board 

entered another decision rescinding the Board action of January 22, 2020 decision, due 

to missing information. Id. at 97. It modified its January 14, 2019, May 15, 2019, and 

September 19, 2019 decisions by removing all references therein to recommitting

Petitioner as a TPV. Id. The Board modified its September 19, 2019 decision to 

declare that Petitioner was recommitted to a state correctional institution to serve 12 

months of backtime as a CPV. Id. Petitioner’s original sentence maximum release 

date remained November 30, 2022. The January 23, 2020, Board decision recommitted 

Petitioner to a state correctional institution as a CPV to serve 12 months’ backtime and

made him ineligible for reparole until June 16, 2020. Id.

On January 28, 2020, the Board mailed Petitioner its response to his 

February 13, June 13 and June 20, 2019 requests for administrative relief, denying 

Petitioner credit for the time he served at liberty on parole and stating that it properly 

recalculated his maximum sentence release date to November 30, 2022, because 

Petitioner had received a new conviction and as such, was found to be a CPV. Id. at 

110-11. 

On February 5, 2020, Petitioner filed an appeal from the Board’s January 

28, 2020 decision with this Court, challenging the recalculation of his sentence 

maximum release date to November 30, 2022. Specifically, he argued that the Board 

erred by (1) failing to grant him credit for the time he spent at liberty on parole; (2) not 
5

calculating his custody time correctly and requiring him to serve his new sentence 

consecutively to his original sentence; and (3) altering his judicially imposed sentence. 

In a decision filed February 3, 2021, this Court affirmed the Board. See Garrus v. 

Board of Pennsylvania Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No, 198 C.D. 2020, filed 

February 3, 2021).

Despite the fact that this Court affirmed the Board’s January 28, 2020 

decision, Petitioner mailed another administrative appeal to the Board, postmarked

April 19, 2021, once again challenging the Board’s January 28, 2020 recalculation of 

his sentence maximum release date to November 30, 2022. (C.R. at 154-55.) On May 

26, 2021, the Board recorded a decision denying Petitioner reparole from his 

recommitment. Id. at 152. On June 7, 2021, Petitioner filed an administrative appeal 

from that decision, again arguing that the Board erred in calculating recalculation of 

his sentence maximum release date to November 30, 2022. Id. at 159-63. 

On October 14, 2021, the Board dismissed Petitioner’s April 19, 2021 and 

June 7, 2021 administrative appeals “as unauthorized” on the basis that the Board’s 

January 28, 2020 response to his multiple administrative appeals was a final 

adjudication and not subject to further Board review. Id. at 189-90. The Board 

explained that the Board’s regulation authorizing administrative relief, 37 Pa. Code § 

73.1,

1

“does not allow for second or subsequent requests for relief, nor does it allow 

for challenges to the Board’s final adjudication.” Id. at 189-190. The Board further 

informed Petitioner:

This is a response to the correspondence received from you 

on April 27, 2021 (postmarked 4/19/2021) . . . and June 11, 

2021 (postmarked 6/7/2021) wherein you seek credit toward 

1

37 Pa. Code § 73.1(4) provides in relevant part: “Second or subsequent appeals and appeals 

which are out of time under these rules will not be received.” 
6

your recalculated maximum date of November 30, 2022. 

Your request for relief is deemed a petition for administrative 

review from the Board decision recorded September 19, 

2019 (delivered 9/23/2019). Your request is denied.

The Board’s regulation authorizing administrative relief does 

not allow for second or subsequent requests for relief, nor 

does it allow for challenges to the Board’s final adjudication. 

37 Pa. Code § 73.1. The record reveals that on January 28, 

2020, the Board mailed to you its final determination 

regarding the recommitment recorded September 19, 2019 

(delivered 9/23/2019). As such, your requests received on 

the above dates are therefore deemed second or subsequent 

requests for relief, they are not properly before the Board, 

and they cannot be accepted. Because they cannot be 

accepted, the Board need not address any of the issues raised 

therein.

Accordingly, your request for relief from your recalculated 

maximum date is hereby DISMISSED as unauthorized.

Id. at 189 (emphasis in original).

On November 13, 2021, Petitioner filed the instant PFR from the Board’s 

Order, mailed on October 14, 2021. On January 18, 2022, this Court appointed the 

Centre County Public Defender to represent Petitioner in this matter, granting leave to 

amend the petition within 30 days. The PFR was timely amended on February 16, 

2022, averring that the Board had illegally extended the original maximum sentence

release date to November 30, 2022.

On April 29, 2022, Attorney David Crowley, a public defender assigned 

to represent Petitioner, sent a Turner2 Letter explaining in great detail all legal issues 

concerning Petitioner’s appeals of the Board’s decision mailed on October 14, 2021, 

2 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927, 928-29 (Pa. 1988).
7

and why they all lacked substantive merit. Petitioner moved forward acting pro se and 

filed a document titled, “Respondent Amended Petition for Review” (Amended PFR).

II. Issues

Insofar as we can interpret Petitioner’s Amended PFR, he argues that on 

January 28, 2020, the Board illegally extended his original sentence to November 30, 

2022, by failing to award him credit with all the time to which he was entitled for the 

time he spent confined from the date of his arrest on new criminal charges to the date 

of his conviction on such charges.3

III. Discussion

A. Mootness

At the outset, it is important to note that Petitioner’s November 30, 2022 

original sentence maximum release date has passed.4 There is nothing in the Certified 

Record to indicate that Petitioner committed any additional crimes or had new charges 

that could extend the maximum term of the original sentence. Therefore, it appears 

Petitioner has already completed the full term of that sentence and is no longer under 

the custody and control of the Commonwealth.

Generally, a case will be dismissed as moot if there exists no 

actual case or controversy. Fraternal Order of Police v. City 

of Philadelphia, 789 A.2d 858 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). The 

existence of a case or controversy requires

(1) a legal controversy that is real and not 

hypothetical, (2) a legal controversy that affects 

3 This Court’s standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were 

violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported 

by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. § 704.

4 Petitioner does not appear to be currently incarcerated. See Inmate/Parolee Locator, Pa. 

Department of Corrections, https://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov (last visited November 15, 2023).
8

an individual in a concrete manner so as to 

provide the factual predicate for a reasoned 

adjudication, and (3) a legal controversy with 

sufficiently adverse parties so as to sharpen the 

issues for judicial resolution. 

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, 605 F.2d 673, 678 ([3d] Cir. 1979). A 

controversy must continue through all stages of judicial 

proceedings, trial and appellate, and the parties must 

continue to have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the 

lawsuit. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 

477-478 (1990). Courts will not enter judgments or decrees 

to which no effect can be given. Britt v. Department of Public 

Welfare, 787 A.2d 457 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). An exception to 

mootness will be found where (1) the conduct complained of 

is capable of repetition yet likely to evade judicial review; (2) 

the case involves issues of great public importance; or (3) one 

party will suffer a detriment in the absence of a court 

determination. Horsehead Resource Development 

Company, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, 780 A.2d 856 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2001).

Mistich v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 863 A.2d 116, 119-20 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2004).

Here, Petitioner has finished serving the sentence that gave rise to the 

challenged maximum sentence date and we cannot grant the requested relief. Although 

the credit issues that Petitioner raises in this appeal are likely capable of repetition, they 

will not evade review and have been addressed in a number of other appeals from Board 

decisions denying administrative relief. Petitioner will not suffer any detriment 
9

without this Court’s decision because he is no longer serving his original state sentence 

and we cannot grant the requested relief.

5

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Amended PFR is dismissed as moot. Because 

our dismissal of the appeal also renders moot Counsel’s Withdrawal Application, we 

dismiss it as well. 

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

5 As noted above, Petitioner has appealed from the Board’s order mailed on October 14, 2021, 

which dismissed Petitioner’s April 19, 2021 and June 7, 2021 administrative appeals “as 

unauthorized” on the basis that the Board’s January 28, 2020 response to his multiple administrative 

appeals was a final adjudication and not subject to further Board review. Thus, the only issue properly 

before this Court on appeal pertains to the Board’s October 14, 2020 decision. Even if the appeal was 

not moot, we would find that the Board did not err in dismissing Petitioner’s subsequent 

administrative challenges as procedurally improper. The Board’s regulations specifically prohibit the 

filing of second or subsequent appeals. Pursuant to Section 73.1(b)(3) of the Board's Regulations, 

the Board was not required to rule on Petitioner’s April 19, 2021 and June 7, 2021 appeals because 

he simply reiterated therein that the Board erred in its recalculation of his maximum sentence date. 

37 Pa. Code § 73.1(b)(3).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Nakia William Garrus, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 1271 C.D. 2021 

:

Pennsylvania Parole Board, :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2023, the Amended Petition 

for Review filed by Nakia William Garrus is hereby DISMISSED as MOOT. The 

Withdrawal Application filed by David Crowley, Esquire, is also DISMISSED as 

MOOT. 

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge