IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tyrone Lampkin, :

Petitioner :

: No. 639 C.D. 2016

v. :

: Submitted: October 7, 2016

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: November 30, 2016

Tyrone Lampkin (Lampkin) petitions for review of the March 15, 2016 

order of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) that denied his 

administrative appeal of a Board order recommitting him as a convicted parole 

violator (CPV) to serve twenty-four months’ backtime and recalculating his

maximum sentence date to November 28, 2017.1 We affirm.

On March 15, 2005, a trial court sentenced Lampkin to three to nine 

years’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to person not to possess a firearm, 

violation of probation, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of a 

controlled substance with intent to deliver (PWID). Lampkin’s minimum sentence

 

1 By per curiam order dated May 20, 2016, this Court appointed counsel to represent 

Lampkin in this appeal. 
2

date was September 10, 2007, and his maximum sentence date was September 10, 

2013. (Certified Record (C.R.) at 1-3.)

On January 30, 2009, the Board granted Lampkin parole and he was 

released on March 16, 2009. Prior to his release, Lampkin signed conditions 

governing his parole advising that, “[i]f 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.” (C.R. at 

12.)

On November 29, 2012, while Lampkin was on parole, the police 

arrested him and charged him with numerous criminal offenses. On May 20, 2015, 

Lampkin pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, PWID, conspiracy to 

commit PWID, and possession of a prohibited firearm. On June 5, 2015, the Board 

lodged a warrant to detain. On July 31, 2015, the trial court sentenced Lamkpin to 

two to four years’ imprisonment in a state correctional institution. Thereafter, 

Lampkin signed a waiver form prepared by the Board, waiving his right to a parole 

revocation hearing and his right to counsel and admitting that he violated his parole 

by committing the crimes for which he was convicted. (C.R. at 53-56, 59, 64-65.)

In a hearing report dated September 16, 2015, the Board accepted 

Lampkin’s waivers and admission to being a CPV. (C.R. at 72-79.) On page 3 of the 

hearing report appeared the line: “BOARD Only – Credit time spent at liberty on 

parole: [ ] No [ ] Yes (Excluded offenses on pg. 8).” In turn, page 8 of the hearing 

report lists offenses that are automatically excluded from street time credit pursuant 

to section 9714(g) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §9714(g), and Lampkin’s 
3

convictions are not listed as one of those enumerated offenses. The Board checked 

“No” and denied Lampkin credit. (C.R. at 74.)

By decision dated November 4, 2015, the Board recommitted Lampkin 

as a CPV, ordered him to serve twenty-four months backtime, and recalculated his 

maximum sentence date from September 10, 2014, to November 28, 2017. In doing 

so, the Board cited 6138(a)(2.1) of the Prison and Parole Code (Parole Code), 61 

Pa.C.S. §6138(a)(2.1), added by the Act of July 5, 2012, P.L. 1050, and our recent 

decision in Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 131 A.3d 604 

(Pa. Cmwlth.) (en banc), appeal granted, 137 A.3d 572 (Pa. 2016). (C.R. at 82-85.) 

On December 28, 2015, Lampkin filed a pro se administrative appeal, 

arguing that he was entitled to credit for time spent at liberty on parole and that his 

maximum sentence date should not have been altered. On March 15, 2016, the 

Board denied Lampkin’s petition and affirmed his recommitment as a CPV. (C.R. at 

86-96.) 

On appeal to this Court,

2

Lampkin first asserts that the Board abused its 

discretion in failing to exercise any kind of discretion when it denied him credit for 

time spent at liberty on parole. Lampkin argues that the complete failure to exercise 

discretion is, in and of itself, an abuse of discretion, and that the Board must 

expressly state reasons for denying him credit. 

Section 6138(a) of the Parole Code provides, in pertinent part, the 

following with regard to CPVs:

§6138. Violation of terms of parole. 

 

2 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, 

whether the adjudication was in accordance with the law, and whether necessary findings were 

supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. § 702; Adams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and 

Parole, 885 A.2d 1121, 1122 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).
4

(a) Convicted violators. 

(1) A parolee under the jurisdiction of the board released 

from a correctional facility who, during the period of parole 

or while delinquent on parole, commits a crime punishable 

by imprisonment, for which the parolee is convicted or 

found guilty by a judge or jury or to which the parolee 

pleads guilty or nolo contendere at any time thereafter in a 

court of record, may at the discretion of the board be 

recommitted as a parole violator.

(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 

paragraph (2.1), shall be given no credit for the time 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)(1)-(2.1)(i) (emphasis added). 

In Pittman, Pittman was convicted of a new crime while he was on 

parole. The Board’s recommitment hearing report contained the following line: 

"BOARD ONLY — Credit time spent at liberty on parole: [ ] No [ ] Yes (excluded 

offense on pg. 8).” 131 A.3d at 606. The Board checked “No.” Id. On appeal, 

Pittman argued that the Board erred by failing to state its reasons for denying him 

credit. This Court rejected this claim, explaining that “there is no statutory basis 
5

upon which to find or infer that the Board must issue a statement of reasons for 

denying a CPV credit for time spent at liberty on parole under section 6138(a)(2.1) of 

the Parole Code” and, therefore, the Board “was not legally required to provide 

Pittman with a statement of reasons for denying him credit for time spent at liberty on 

parole.” Pittman, 131 A.3d at 614 and 616. Applying principles of statutory 

construction, we concluded that “it is incumbent upon the legislature to explicitly 

impose such a requirement if it be [its] intent.” Id. at 616.

Pittman is controlling authority for purposes of resolving this case.

3

 In 

Lampkin’s recommitment hearing report, the Board noted that it was not awarding 

him credit for his time at liberty on parole by checking the box for “No.” (C.R. 72.)

Under Pittman, this is sufficient to establish that the Board exercised the discretion 

afforded to it under section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Parole Code and the Board need not 

provide reasons for denying Lampkin credit. Therefore, in accordance with Pittman,

we conclude that the Board did not err in denying Lampkin credit for time spent at 

liberty while on parole. 

Lampkin also contends that, irrespective of the Parole Code, the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment4requires that the Board provide a 

statement of reasons for denying him credit. This argument, however, was 

considered and rejected in Pittman:

[T]he Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution provides, in relevant part, that no “State [shall] 

 

3 Although our Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in Pittman, that decision 

remains binding on this Court unless or until it is overruled by our Supreme Court. See Pries v. 

Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), 903 A.2d 136, 144 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2006).

4 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1.
6

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due 

process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1. To maintain 

a due process challenge, a party must initially establish the 

deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest. 

Miller v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pavex, 

Inc.), 918 A.2d 809, 812 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Only after 

the party establishes the deprivation of a protected interest 

will we consider what method of due process is required. 

Id. 

Here, Pittman has no constitutionally protected liberty 

interest in receiving credit for time spent on parole. See 

Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 409 

A.2d 843, 847-48 (Pa. 1979); Tubbs v. Board of Probation 

and Parole, 620 A.2d 584, 585-86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993); 

Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423, 426 (5th Cir. 2001); 

Dews v. Waldern, 590 F.Supp.2d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 2008). 

Neither does Pittman have a protected property interest 

under state law. “When an individual alleges a protected 

property interest in the receipt of a state created benefit, the 

individual must establish more than a mere expectation to 

it; the individual must demonstrate an actual entitlement to 

it.” Miller, 918 A.2d at 812. Under section 6138(a)(2.1) of 

the Parole Code, credit for time served on parole is at the 

Board’s sole discretion (“may, in its discretion”). See

Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 

U.S. 454, 464-65 (1989); Frey v. Fulcomer, 132 F.3d 916, 

925 n.7 (3d Cir. 1997).

Pittman, 131 A.3d at 616 n.12. Consistent with Pittman, we conclude that the due 

process clause does not command that the Board issue a statement of reasons for 

denying Lampkin credit. 

Finally, Lampkin argues that the Board erred when it extended his 

maximum sentence because the Board does not have the authority to usurp the 

judicial function of sentencing. To the contrary, however, “denial of credit . . . does 

not effect the sentence in such a manner as would be offensive to the doctrine of 

separation of powers,” and the Board’s authority to deny credit under section 

6138(a)(2.1) of the Parole Code “is not an encroachment upon the judicial sentencing 
7

power.” Young, 409 A.2d at 848. Moreover, the Board’s authority to revoke street 

time for convicted parole violators is long settled in this Commonwealth. See 

Commonwealth ex rel. Ohodnicki v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole, 211 A.2d 433, 

435 (Pa. 1965) (concluding that the Board’s action in denying credit for a convicted 

parole violator’s time spent at liberty on parole does not unlawfully extend the term 

of his maximum sentence). Consequently, Lampkin’s contention fails. 

Accordingly, having determined the Lampkin’s arguments lack merit, 

we affirm the Board’s order.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tyrone Lampkin, :

Petitioner :

: No. 639 C.D. 2016

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2016, the March 15, 2016 

order of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is hereby affirmed. 

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge