IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Staley Williams, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 181 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: September 9, 2016

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: November 16, 2016

Staley Williams petitions for review of an adjudication of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Parole Board) denying his request for 

administrative review of the Parole Board’s decision recommitting him as a 

convicted parole violator to serve 24 months backtime. Williams argues that the 

Parole Board erred because it did not explain its reason for not crediting Williams 

for time spent at liberty on parole. Further, Williams challenges the Parole Board’s 

recalculation of his maximum sentence date to be September 15, 2019. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm the Parole Board’s order. 

Williams is currently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution 

at Graterford. His original conviction for drug charges resulted in a three to six 

year sentence. His minimum release date was September 3, 2012, and his 

maximum release date was September 3, 2015. Williams was paroled on April 4, 

2011, and released to Adappt Treatment Services. The conditions of parole, which 
2

Williams signed, stated: “If you are convicted of a crime committed while on 

parole, 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, with no credit for time at liberty on parole.” Certified Record at 20 (C.R. 

__). 

On September 9, 2014, Williams was arrested for drug related charges 

and confined in the Berks County Prison. On October 16, 2014, Williams was 

recommitted for six months for multiple technical parole violations. C.R. 64-66. 

On April 16, 2015, Williams pled guilty to: (1) corrupt organizations; (2) criminal 

use of a communication facility; and (3) two counts of manufacture, delivery, and 

possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance. On that same day, the 

trial court sentenced Williams to two to five years confinement in a state 

correctional institution. C.R. 75. Williams received credit on his new sentence for 

his confinement from September 10, 2014, to April 16, 2015. 

On July 27, 2015, Williams waived his right to a parole revocation 

hearing and acknowledged his drug conviction in Berks County while he was on 

parole. On August 20, 2015, the Parole Board recommitted Williams as a 

convicted parole violator to serve twenty-four months backtime. C.R. 125-126. 

On October 9, 2015, Williams filed an administrative appeal, 

challenging the timeliness of the Parole Board’s determination, the calculation of 

his recommitment term, and the decision not to award him credit for time spent at 

liberty on parole. The Parole Board, finding no grounds for relief, affirmed its 

August 20, 2015, decision. Williams now petitions this court for review. 
3

On appeal,1 Williams raises three issues. First, Williams argues that 

the Parole Board erred in automatically denying him credit for time spent at liberty 

on parole without explaining its reasoning, in violation of Section 6138 of the 

Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code), 61 Pa. C.S. §6138. Second, Williams 

argues that if his new conviction, which forms the basis for the parole violation, 

does not fall within any excluded categories listed in Section 6138 of the Parole 

Code, his maximum sentence date should not be changed. Third, and relatedly,

Williams submits that the language of Section 6138 of the Parole Code does not 

give the Parole Board the authority to extend a maximum sentence date. The 

Parole Board responds that it acted in accordance with the relevant statute and case 

law in its recommitment of Williams.

We address, first, Williams’ argument that the Parole Board erred by 

automatically denying him credit for time spent at liberty on parole, also referred 

to as “street time.” Specifically, Williams contends that the Parole Board violated 

Section 6138 of the Parole Code by failing to provide reasons for denying him 

credit for his street time. Section 6138 states, in relevant part: 

(a) Convicted violators.

***

(2) If the parolee’s recommitment is so ordered, 

the parolee shall be reentered to serve the 

remainder of the term which the parolee would 

have been compelled to serve had the parole not 

been granted and, except as provided under 

 

1 Our scope of review is to determine whether the Parole Board’s decision is supported by 

substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether constitutional rights 

have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Moroz v. 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 660 A.2d 131, 132 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
4

paragraph (2.1), shall be given no credit for the 

time spent at liberty on parole. 

(2.1) The board may, in its discretion, award 

credit to a parolee recommitted under paragraph 

(2) for the time spent at liberty on parole, unless 

any of the following apply: 

(i) The crime committed during 

the period of parole or while 

delinquent on parole is a crime of 

violence as defined in 42 Pa. C.S. 

§9714(g) (relating to sentences for 

second and subsequent offenses) or a 

crime requiring registration under 42 

Pa. C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H (relating to 

registration of sexual offenders). 

61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a). Williams concedes that Section 6138 does not automatically 

entitle him to credit for his street time. Instead, he argues that the Parole Board, as 

part of exercising its discretion under Section 6138(a)(2.1), had to not only decide 

whether he forfeited his street time but also explain the reasoning behind that

decision. Williams argues that the Parole Board’s mere checking of a box on the 

hearing report form denying him credit was insufficient to demonstrate that the 

Board exercised its discretion. 

This Court recently considered and rejected this identical issue in 

Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 131 A.3d 604 (Pa. 

Cmwlth.), appeal granted, 137 A.3d 572 (Pa. 2016). There, this Court analyzed 

the language of Section 6138(a)(2.1), which grants the Parole Board discretion 

over whether to award credit to a recommitted parolee. We explained that

section 6138(a)(2.1) only states that the Board “may, in its 

discretion, award credit....” Based upon its plain language, 

there are no statutory standards in section 6138(a)(2.1) of the 

Parole Code that define or curtail how, when, or in what 

manner discretion should or must be exercised. It is well-
5

settled that this Court cannot supply such guideposts as a matter 

of judicial construction. Ultimately, the absence of statutory 

standards further supports the conclusion that the Board’s 

checking of “no” on the hearing report demonstrates that the 

Board fully exercised the discretion that the legislature afforded 

to it under section 6138 of the Parole Code.

Id. at 611 (citations omitted). Therefore, in accordance with Pittman, the Parole 

Board did not abuse its discretion by checking the “No” box on its hearing report 

form to indicate that it was not crediting Williams for his street time. Because no 

additional explanation was necessary, the Parole Board did not abuse its discretion 

under Section 6138(a)(2.1). 

Next, Williams contends that because his new conviction was not for 

a crime excluded from credit consideration under Section 6138(a)(2.1)(i) the 

Parole Board erred in recalculating his maximum sentence date. Section 

6138(a)(2.1)(i) expressly limits the discretion of the Parole Board by requiring it to 

deny credit for time spent at liberty on parole if a parolee has committed a crime of 

violence as defined in 42 Pa. C.S. §9714(g) or a crime requiring registration as a 

sex offender under 42 Pa. C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H. 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2.1)(i). 

Williams argues that because he did not commit either of those types of crimes, the 

Parole Board erred by not awarding him credit and extending his maximum

sentence date. We disagree.

That the Parole Board is statutorily prohibited from awarding credit to 

a parolee who has been recommitted for a crime of violence or requiring 

registration as a sex offender does not mean that the Board must award credit to a 

parolee who has not committed such a crime. Williams’ crime is not expressly 

excluded from credit consideration by subsection (a)(2.1); however, the decision 

regarding whether to award a parolee credit remains discretionary with the Parole 
6

Board. Pittman, 131 A.3d at 609. What is more, Williams’ conditions of parole, 

which he signed on April 4, 2011, expressly stated that if he is convicted of a crime 

while on parole and recommitted, he will not be credited for the time spent at 

liberty on parole. C.R. 20. Accordingly, the fact that Williams was convicted of a 

crime that was nonviolent and did not require sex-offender registration did not 

necessitate that the Parole Board credit him for his street time. 

In a related argument, Williams argues that the Parole Board erred in 

recalculating his maximum sentence date. Specifically, he argues that the Parole 

Board is not authorized to alter a judicially imposed maximum sentence. Initially, 

we note that the Parole Board has “the power to recommit a convicted parole 

violator to serve the balance of the court-imposed maximum sentence if the new 

crime was committed by the parolee before the expiration of the maximum 

sentence originally imposed.” Knisley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and 

Parole, 362 A.2d 1146, 1148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976). Further, “the constitutional 

challenges to this procedure [have been] rejected by this Court....” Id. Williams

was recommitted as a convicted parole violator on April 16, 2015. Williams 

committed his new crime before his original sentence had expired, i.e., prior to 

September 3, 2015. Accordingly, the Parole Board had the power to recommit 

Williams to serve the balance of his court imposed maximum sentence, resulting in 

a new maximum sentence date of September 15, 2019.2

 

2 Williams’ brief inaccurately states that 1301 days were added to his sentence. Williams’ Brief 

at 9. The Parole Board correctly recalculated Williams’ maximum sentence date by adding 1613 

days. Williams was paroled on April 4, 2011, with a maximum sentence date of September 3, 

2015. When he was paroled, he had 1613 days remaining on his sentence. The Parole Board’s 

decision to recommit him as a convicted parole violator authorized the recalculation of his 

sentence to reflect that Williams received no credit for the time he spent at liberty on parole. 

Because Williams was convicted as a technical parole violator on October 16, 2014, and 

(Footnote continued on the next page . . .)
7

For these reasons, we affirm the Parole Board’s adjudication. 

 ______________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

 

(continued . . .)

recommitted to serve six months, he became available to begin serving the remainder of his 

original sentence on April 16, 2015. Accordingly, adding 1613 days to Williams’ start date 

yields a new maximum sentence date of September 15, 2019. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Staley Williams, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 181 C.D. 2016

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2016, the order of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole dated December 14, 2015 in the 

above-captioned matter is AFFIRMED.

 ______________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge