IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Guyliano Laguerre, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 837 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: October 2, 2015

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: December 15, 2015

Guyliano Laguerre (Laguerre) petitions for review of an order of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) that denied his request for 

administrative relief. Laguerre contends the Board erred by not properly crediting 

time served solely on the Board’s detainer to his original sentence. In addition, he 

asserts the Board erred by not complying with laws regarding service of sentences, 

which caused him to improperly serve consecutive time. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm. 

I. Background

In July 2008, Laguerre was convicted of one count of possession with 

intent to deliver (PWID), and he was sentenced to a term of two to four years in 

prison. Certified Record (C.R.) at 1-3. Laguerre’s original maximum sentence 

date was July 24, 2012. C.R. at 1. 
2

On June 22, 2009, the Board released Laguerre on parole. C.R. at 4-7. 

On August 19, 2011, the Board declared Laguerre delinquent, and it issued a 

warrant to arrest and detain him for technical parole violations. C.R. at 9-10. On 

April 5, 2013, Laguerre was arrested and detained on the Board’s warrant pending 

disposition of the technical parole violations. C.R. at 11-16, 17-20. 

While on parole and prior to his arrest, Laguerre was charged with 

two offenses in Lancaster County. Specifically, in July 2012, county authorities 

charged Laguerre with PWID occurring in February 2011. C.R. at 38-41. Then, in

September 2011, authorities charged him with PWID and possession of drug 

paraphernalia that occurred in August 2011. C.R. 54-57. On May 2, 2013, and 

June 17, 2013, respectively, authorities set bail, which he did not post. C.R. at 44, 

48, 49, 66. 

On May 31, 2013, the Board recommitted Laguerre as a technical 

parole violator to serve six months’ backtime for violating conditions of his 

parole.1 C.R. at 33-35. According to the Board’s calculations, Laguerre owed 340 

days of backtime, and it entered a new maximum date of March 11, 2014. C.R. at 

31. 

Laguerre pled guilty to the new criminal offenses. C.R. at 48, 65. On 

February 26, 2014, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County (sentencing 

court) sentenced him to serve three to six years for each PWID offense and 12 

 

1

Laguerre waived his rights to counsel and a detention hearing, and he admitted to the 

technical parole violations. Certified Record (C.R.) at 21-22. 
3

months of probation for possession of drug paraphernalia. C.R. at 49, 58. The 

sentencing court directed confinement on the new sentences to run concurrently. 

C.R. at 49. The sentencing also ordered credit for time served. C.R. at 43, 51, 59. 

Based on his new convictions, the Board sent Laguerre a notice of 

charges and revocation hearing form. C.R. at 72. Laguerre voluntarily waived his 

right to a revocation hearing and counsel at the hearing. He admitted he was 

convicted of new criminal offenses. C.R. at 73. 

By decision mailed May 30, 2014, the Board modified its prior action 

and recommitted Laguerre as a convicted parole violator to serve 18 months

concurrently with the 6 months previously imposed for his technical parole 

violations (revocation decision).

2

 C.R. at 85. The Board recommitted him on 

April 25, 2014. C.R. at 81, 89. The Board determined Laguerre owed 1101 days 

in backtime, and it recalculated Laguerre’s new maximum sentence date of May 1, 

2017. C.R. at 85-90. The Board also determined Laguerre would not be eligible 

for parole until September 29, 2015. C.R. at 85. 

Laguerre, representing himself, filed a request for administrative relief 

in June 2014, asserting sentence-credit and reparole-eligibility-date challenges

 

2

The Board retains jurisdiction to recommit an individual as a parole violator after the 

expiration of the maximum term, so long as the crimes that lead to the conviction occurred while 

the individual was on parole. Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 77 A.3d 66, 74 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), appeal denied, 87 A.3d 322 (Pa. 2014). 
4

(First Request).

3

 C.R. at 96-96, 108-109. Specifically, Laguerre challenged the 

calculation of his new maximum sentence date of May 1, 2017. C.R. at 95-96, 

108-109. Laguerre asserted he owed only 340 days as previously determined and, 

on that basis, he claimed his recomputed maximum date should remain March 11, 

2014. C.R. at 95, 109. According to Laguerre, he did not forfeit any time between 

his date of parole (June 22, 2009) and date of delinquency (August 19, 2011). C.R. 

at 95, 109. He claimed the imposition of 18 months’ backtime exceeded the 

amount of time owed of 340 days. C.R. at 95, 109. And, he asserted he should be 

credited for 27 days served under the Board’s jurisdiction at a halfway house. C.R. 

at 95, 109. Laguerre also challenged the calculation of his parole eligibility date. 

According to Laguerre, the Board miscalculated his parole eligibility date by not 

taking into account 6 months’ backtime served for the technical parole violations 

when the Board imposed 18 months’ backtime to run concurrently. C.R. at 95, 

109. 

In response, the Board asked for additional information regarding the 

halfway house. C.R. at 121. More particularly, the Board asked for the name of 

the halfway house and the dates he resided there, and it gave Laguerre 30 days to 

supply the information. C.R. at 121. Laguerre sent two letters in reply. C.R. at 

122-125. In his first reply, Laguerre advised he was represented by counsel. C.R.

at 124. In the second reply, he asserted he previously provided the information 

requested, and inquired as to the status of his appeal. C.R. at 122. 

 

3

Laguerre filed two separate requests within the 30-day time limit to appeal the Board’s 

decision, which the Board treated as one petition for administrative relief. Resp’t’s Br. at 5 n.1. 
5

Meanwhile, by action mailed September 18, 2014, the Board modified 

the revocation decision by changing Laguerre’s maximum sentence date from May 

1, 2017, to April 30, 2017, and his reparole eligibility date from September 29, 

2015, to September 28, 2015 (modification decision). C.R. at 91. 

By action mailed September 23, 2014, the Board dismissed 

Laguerre’s First Request as moot. C.R. at 126. The Board explained Laguerre’s 

replies did not contain the information requested. C.R. at 126. The Board advised

that, if Laguerre wished to contest the new maximum sentence or reparole 

eligibility dates, he must file a petition for review from the Board’s modification 

decision. C.R. at 126.

On October 8, 2014, Laguerre filed a second uncounseled request for 

administrative relief challenging the Board’s calculation of his new maximum date, 

sentence credit, and parole eligibility date in the modification decision (Second 

Request). C.R. at 127-131. Once again, Laguerre claimed he did not owe more 

than 340 days of backtime, and he did not forfeit any of his time at liberty on 

parole prior to his delinquency date. C.R. at 128. According to Laguerre, his 

delinquency date (August 19, 2011), should be used for calculations, not his parole 

date (June 22, 2009). C.R. at 127-128. He reasserted his claim that his parole 

eligibility date should be modified to reflect all time served in prison, including 6 

months’ backtime for technical parole violations. C.R. at 130. In addition, 

Laguerre questioned the Board’s custody of return date, maintaining it should be 

his date of arrest (April 5, 2013) not his recommitment date (April 25, 2014). C.R. 

at 127. And, Laguerre claimed he was entitled to 27 days’ credit for time spent at 
6

Wernersville Community Corrections Center (Wernersville CCC) from June 2009 

to July 2009. C.R. at 130. 

In response, the Board informed Laguerre an evidentiary hearing 

would be held on his claim regarding credit for time spent at Wernersville CCC. 

C.R. at 132. It advised, “[b]ecause an evidentiary hearing is pending, the Board 

cannot affirm or reverse the calculation reflected in the [B]oard action mailed 

September 18, 2014 at this time.” C.R. at 132. 

After an evidentiary hearing, by action mailed on March 26, 2015, the 

Board denied credit for time spent at Wernersville CCC. C.R. at 92-94. The 

Board explained Laguerre did not prove the program at Wernersville CCC 

restricted his liberty in a manner sufficient to warrant backtime credit. C.R. at 93 

(citing Cox v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985)). 

Thereafter, with assistance of counsel, Laguerre filed a third request 

for administrative relief (Third Request). C.R. at 133. In it, Laguerre reasserted 

his claim that the Board’s calculation of his maximum date was erroneous. More 

particularly, he claimed the Board erred by setting a maximum sentence date

beyond the period that he could be required to serve on the underlying sentence. 

Laguerre also claimed the Board lacked jurisdiction to revoke his parole because 

he was not on parole or under the Board’s authority at the time of revocation. 

Finally, by failing to comply with laws relating to the order in which to serve 

sentences, Laguerre asserted the Board improperly caused him to serve consecutive 

time. C.R. at 133. 
7

On May 6, 2015, the Board responded Laguerre did not preserve the 

jurisdictional issue. C.R. at 135-136. As for Laguerre’s claim that the Board 

improperly caused him to serve his sentences consecutively, the Board explained 

convicted parole violators must serve their original sentence first followed by their 

new sentence. The Board dismissed as unauthorized Laguerre’s Third Request to 

the extent it objected to the revocation decision mailed May 30, 2014, and it 

affirmed the action mailed March 26, 2015, regarding sentence calculation. C.R. at 

136. From this decision, Laguerre petitions for review with this Court. 

II. Issues

On appeal,4 Laguerre contends the Board erred in calculating his new 

maximum sentence date because it does not accurately reflect periods during which 

he was incarcerated and under the Board’s jurisdiction or credit time served solely 

on the Board’s detainer. In addition, he asserts the Board erred by not complying 

with the laws regarding the order a recommitted parolee must serve his sentences, 

which improperly caused him to serve consecutive time. Laguerre also seeks a 

remand because the Board did not address all claims previously raised. 

The Board counters Laguerre waived the revocation claim issues on 

appeal by failing to properly raise them before the Board in his First Request. It 

asserts a remand is not necessary because it addressed all issues properly raised. 

Notwithstanding, the Board maintains it properly calculated Laguerre’s maximum 

 

4 Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, 

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

supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. 

§704; Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 77 A.3d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), appeal denied, 

87 A.3d 322 (Pa. 2014).
8

sentence date and required Laguerre to serve his original sentence before his new 

sentence. 

III. Discussion

A. Waiver

We first address the issue of waiver. The Board asserts Laguerre 

waived his revocation decision claims by failing to first raise them before the 

Board. 

In an administrative agency appeal, a party may not raise any question 

not raised before the agency unless allowed by the Court upon due cause shown. 

Section 703(a) of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §703(a); Pa. R.A.P. 

1551(a). Any issues not raised in an administrative appeal to the Board are waived

for purposes of appellate review. Goods v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 912 A.2d 

226 (Pa. 2006); McCaskill v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 631 A.2d 1092 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). 

Upon review, Laguerre made an earnest attempt to navigate through 

the Board’s multiple recommitment and recalculation decisions as well as its 

requests for additional information. In his First Request, Laguerre claimed the 

Board miscalculated his maximum sentence date, and it did not credit him for all 

time served under the Board’s jurisdiction, including time served at Wernersville 

CCC.

5

 The fact that Laguerre did not adequately respond to the Board’s inquiries 

regarding time served at Wernersville CCC did not nullify his other challenges

 

5

Laguerre admits he waived the issue regarding whether he was entitled to a credit for 

time spent at Wernersville CCC on appeal. Pet’r’s Br. at 16 n.2. 
9

regarding sentence credit and parole eligibility. In fact, when the Board directed 

Laguerre to challenge its modification decision, Laguerre reasserted the same 

challenges in his Second Request. C.R. at 127. In his Third Request, Laguerre, 

through counsel, asserted claims regarding sentence credit and sequence of

sentences. As these issues are the issues now raised on appeal, we decline to find 

waiver.

6

 

Notwithstanding, we also decline Laguerre’s request for remand. 

Although Laguerre makes a general claim that the Board did not address all issues 

raised in his First Request, he does not identify which issues were not addressed or 

provide a legal justification for remand. See Pet’r’s Br. at 16, 17, 20. Upon 

review, we conclude the Board adequately responded to and denied Laguerre’s 

requests for relief as they pertain to the issues raised and developed in this appeal. 

B. Maximum Sentence Date & Backtime Credit

Turning to the merits, Laguerre asserts the Board did not afford him 

credit for all time incarcerated under the Board’s detainer. Specifically, he claims 

the Board did not account for the period of incarceration from his date of arrest 

(April 5, 2013) until sentencing (February 26, 2014). He claims this time should 

be credited towards the backtime owed and his maximum sentence date should be 

adjusted accordingly. 

 

6

Insofar as Laguerre also challenged the Board’s jurisdiction to revoke parole in his 

Third Request, he does not raise or otherwise pursue this issue on appeal. See Pet. for Review at 

2; Pet’r’s Br. at 11. Consequently, this issue is not before us. 
10

The Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code) provides that any parolee 

who, during the period of parole, commits a crime punishable by imprisonment 

and is convicted or found guilty of that crime may be recommitted as a convicted 

parole violator. 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(1). If the parolee is recommitted as a 

convicted parole violator, he must serve the remainder of the term, which he would 

have been compelled to serve had parole not been granted, with no credit for the 

time at liberty on parole, unless the Board chooses to award credit.

7

 

61 Pa. C.S. §§6138(a)(2), (2.1). If a new sentence is imposed, he must serve the 

balance of the original sentence prior to commencement of the new term. 

61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(5)(i). 

“[W]here an offender is incarcerated on both a Board detainer and 

new criminal charges, all time spent in confinement must be credited to either the 

new sentence or the original sentence.” Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 

A.2d 299, 309 (Pa. 2003). Time incarcerated shall be credited to a convicted 

parole violator’s original term only when he has satisfied bail requirements for the 

new offense and, thus, remains incarcerated solely by reason of the Board’s 

detainer. Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980). When bail 

is not posted, time incarcerated on both the new criminal charges and the Board’s 

detainer must apply to the new sentence. Id. Only when it is not possible to award 

all of the credit on the new sentence because the period of pre-sentence 

incarceration exceeds the maximum term of the new sentence will credit be applied 

 

7

In comparison, when a parolee is recommitted for technical parole violations, he is 

given credit for time served on parole in good standing, but with no credit for delinquent time. 

61 Pa. C.S. §6138(c)(2).
11

to the offender's original sentence. Melhorn v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 908 A.2d 

266 (Pa. 2006); Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2007). 

Here, the Board recommitted Laguerre as a convicted parole violator

to serve the remainder of his term. At the time of his parole, 1128 days remained 

on his original sentence, which is the difference between his original maximum 

sentence date (July 24, 2012) and his parole date (June 22, 2009).8 C.R. at 118. 

The Board credited 27 days, which represents Laguerre’s period of incarceration 

served solely on the Board’s detainer after his arrest (April 5, 2013) but before bail 

was set (May 2, 2013) on the new criminal charges. By subtracting 27 days from 

1128 days, the Board correctly calculated a total of 1101 days remaining towards 

his original sentence. C.R. at 83, 85-90. 

Laguerre did not become available to begin serving backtime until

April 25, 2014, when the Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator. 

C.R. at 81, 89. Adding 1101 days to April 25, 2014, results in a new maximum 

sentence date of April 30, 2017. C.R. at 89. 

 

8 When Laguerre was initially recommitted as a technical parole violator, he did not lose 

all time at liberty on parole in good standing. See 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(c)(2). Consequently, he 

owed 340 days, which is the amount of time between his original maximum sentence date (July 

24, 2012) and his declared delinquency date (August 19, 2011). C.R. at 31. However, upon his 

recommitment as a convicted parole violator, the Board chose not to give credit for time on 

parole. See 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2) & (2.1). Thus, the remainder of his term was 1128 days, not 

340 days. 
12

Contrary to Laguerre’s assertions, he is not entitled to pre-sentence 

credit for the period between May 2, 2013, when bail was set, and February 26, 

2014, the date of sentencing, towards his original sentence. Because Laguerre did 

not post bail, Laguerre was detained under the Board’s warrant and the new 

criminal charges during this period. When bail is not posted, time incarcerated on 

both the new criminal charges and the Board’s detainer must apply to the new 

sentence, not the original sentence, unless it is not possible to credit all time to the 

new sentence. Melhorn; Gaito. According to the criminal dockets, the sentencing 

court directed credit for time served on his new sentence. C.R. at 43, 51, 59. As 

Laguerre’s new sentence of three to six years did not exceed his pre-sentence 

incarceration period, it was possible for the sentencing court to credit this presentence time to the new sentence.9

 See Melhorn. 

For these reasons, we conclude the Board properly credited 

Laguerre’s original sentence and recalculated his maximum sentence date. 

 

9

The Department of Corrections (Department) is responsible for reviewing the 

sentencing court’s orders and determining the appropriate sentence credit as well as the 

minimum and maximum dates for Laguerre’s aggregated new offenses. See 42 Pa. C.S. §§9757, 

9760, 9761, 9762; see also McCray v. Dep’t of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127, 1133 (Pa. 2005) (the 

Department “is charged with faithfully implementing sentences imposed by the courts”); 

Gillespie v. Dep't of Corr., 527 A.2d 1061 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (the Department, not the Board, is 

responsible for calculating the minimum and maximum terms of prisoners committed to its 

jurisdiction). If there is an issue once the Department establishes the minimum and maximum 

sentence dates for new sentences, Laguerre will have an opportunity to challenge it at that time. 

See Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 
13

C. Consecutive Sentences

Next, we address whether Laguerre’s claim that the Board violated the 

laws regarding the order in which a recommitted parolee must serve his sentences. 

Under the Parole Code, where a new sentence is imposed, a parolee 

must first serve the balance of term originally imposed before serving any time on 

the new sentence. 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(5). Sentences for crimes committed on 

parole must be served consecutively with the original sentence. Commonwealth v. 

Dorian, 468 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 1983). This rule takes effect when parole is revoked 

and the remainder of the sentence is due and owing. Richmond v. Commonwealth, 

402 A.2d 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). 

Here, Laguerre is currently serving his original sentence. Laguerre 

will be available to begin serving his new criminal sentence at either the expiration 

of his maximum sentence date of April 30, 2017, or some point prior if he is 

reparoled. Contrary to Laguerre’s assertions, the Board did not violate any laws 

regarding the order in which he must serve his sentences or otherwise cause him to 

improperly serve consecutive time.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Board denying Laguerre’s 

request for administrative relief. 

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Guyliano Laguerre, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 837 C.D. 2015

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2015, the order of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is AFFIRMED.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge