IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Samuel Jaquel Hill, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Parole Board, : No. 134 C.D. 2023

Respondent : Submitted: November 9, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: December 20, 2023

Samuel Jaquel Hill (Hill), through counsel, petitions for review of the 

January 27, 2023 order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) denying his 

administrative challenge to the computation of his parole violation maximum date. 

Upon review, we vacate the Board’s order and remand this matter to the Board for 

further proceedings.

I. Background

Hill was released on parole on December 1, 2014. Certified Record 

(C.R.) at 7. Several years later, Hill was arrested and convicted of a drug-related 

crime. Id. at 22, 27, 29, 35, 44. Hill was eventually re-paroled. Id. at 128. In 

October 2019, Hill incurred criminal charges stemming from the unlawful 
2

possession of a firearm in Berks County. Id. at 66-70. On November 14, 2019, bail 

was set, which Hill did not post. Id. at 122. On August 26, 2021, Hill entered a 

guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to 11.5 to 23 months’ 

imprisonment. Id. at 112, 116-17 & 122. The following month, Hill was released 

on parole. C.R. at 127. In January 2022, the Board recommitted Hill as a convicted 

parole violator, denying him credit for time spent at liberty on parole and 

establishing a parole violation maximum date of August 19, 2028. Id. at 131-32. 

In February 2022, Hill submitted an administrative remedies form 

challenging the Board’s allocation of pre-sentence confinement credit and the 

Board’s denial of credit for time spent at liberty on parole. C.R. at 134. On January 

27, 2023, the Board denied Hill’s challenge,

1 explaining: 

The Prisons and Parole Code[ (Parole Code), 61 Pa.C.S. 

§§ 101-7301,] provides that convicted parole violators 

who are paroled from a state correctional institution and 

then receive a county sentence of confinement on their 

new charges will not become available to commence 

service of the original sentence until parole from, or 

completion of the county sentence.[2]In this case[,]

1 The Board stated that it deemed Hill’s administrative remedies form a petition for 

administrative review from its January 2022 decision. C.R. at 139.

2 The Board presumably references Section 6138(a)(5) of the Parole Code, which provides:

(5) If a new sentence is imposed on the offender, the service of the 

balance of the term originally imposed by a Pennsylvania court shall 

precede the commencement of the new term imposed in the 

following cases:

(i) If a person is paroled from a State correctional institution and the 

new sentence imposed on the person is to be served in the State 

correctional institution.
3

September 8, 2021 is his effective date of return because 

that is when he was paroled from his Berks County 

conviction. Adding 2537 days to that date yields a new 

maximum date of August 19, 2028.

C.R. at 140.

Hill petitioned this Court for review. 

II. Issues

Before this Court,3 Hill argues that the Board erroneously computed his 

parole violation maximum date by applying 651 days of pre-sentence confinement 

credit4to his new county sentence in contravention of a plea agreement stipulating

that the Board would credit only 367 days against the new sentence, with the 

remaining 284 days applied to his original sentence. Hill’s Br. at 13. Hill asserts 

that the Board should have adhered to the terms of the plea agreement, because the 

stipulation was “accepted and documented in the sentencing order,” he provided 

testimony under oath regarding the terms thereof at the parole revocation hearing,

(ii) If a person is paroled from a county prison and the new sentence 

imposed upon him is to be served in the same county prison.

(iii) In all other cases, the service of the new term for the latter crime 

shall precede commencement of the balance of the term originally 

imposed.

61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5).

3 Our scope of review of a decision of the Board denying administrative relief 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 Hill identifies the disputed 651-day period as ranging from November 14, 2019, when 

bail was set in Berks County, to August 26, 2021, the date of sentencing. Hill’s Br. at 9; see also 

C.R. at 122.
4

and the Board did not challenge this testimony. Id. at 22. Further, Hill maintains 

that the plea agreement does not violate the Parole Code, as that statute “does not 

dictate the allocation of confinement credit.” Id. at 23. Thus, Hill requests that this 

Court remand the matter to the Board to recompute his parole violation maximum 

date in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. See id. at 26.

The Board counters that it correctly allocated Hill’s backtime and 

confinement credit. Board’s Br. at 7-10. The Board contends that “[w]hile Hill may 

. . . have entered a plea deal that included 367 days of confinement time at his new 

docket, . . . [r]eallocating credit based on Hill’s belief that he thought more credit 

would be going to his backtime at the time of sentencing at his new charges would 

necessarily contradict the well-established rulings in Gaito [v. Pennsylvania Board 

of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980),] and Smith [v. Pennsylvania 

Board of Probation and Parole, 171 A.3d 759 (Pa. 2017)].” Id. at 9-10. Further, 

the Board maintains that “[u]nlike the facts in Feilke [v. Pennsylvania Board of 

Proation & Parole, 648 A.2d 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)], here we have a clear record 

of the negotiated plea and the intention of the court is not in dispute, as the sentencing 

order speaks for itself.” Id. at 10. Thus, the Board maintains that “Hill is not entitled 

to additional credit which would necessarily contradict long established caselaw 

simply because he believed he was getting a better deal at his new conviction.” Id. 

at 10.5

5 The Board further asserts that this Court should deem meritless Hill’s argument that the 

Board failed to provide, contemporaneously to its decision to recommit, adequate reasons for 

denying him credit for time at liberty on parole. Board’s Br. at 11-12. However, Hill stated in his 

appellate brief that “[h]aving had an opportunity to review the previously unavailable hearing 

examiner’s report, [he] withdraws his issue that the decision to forfeit street time was not made 

contemporaneous with that report.” Hill’s Br. at 6.
5

III. Discussion

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 590(B) provides, in pertinent 

part:

(1) At any time prior to the verdict, when counsel for both 

sides have arrived at a plea agreement, they shall state on 

the record in open court, in the presence of the defendant, 

the terms of the agreement, unless the judge orders, for 

good cause shown and with the consent of the defendant, 

counsel for the defendant, and the attorney for the 

Commonwealth, that specific conditions in the agreement 

be placed on the record in camera and the record sealed.

(2) The judge shall conduct a separate inquiry of the 

defendant on the record to determine whether the 

defendant understands and voluntarily accepts the terms of 

the plea agreement on which the guilty plea or plea of nolo 

contendere is based.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(B)(1), (2). Our Supreme Court has explained:

While it is true that the practice of plea bargaining is 

looked upon with favor, the integrity of our judicial 

process demands that certain safeguards be stringently 

adhered to so that the resultant plea as entered by a 

defendant and accepted by the trial court will always be 

one made voluntarily and knowingly, with a full 

understanding of the consequences to follow.

Commonwealth v. Zuber, 353 A.2d 441, 443 (Pa. 1976) (citations omitted).

In Feilke, a parolee (Feilke) posted bail following his arrest on new 

criminal charges. 648 A.2d at 122. The original maximum term on Feilke’s sentence 

thereafter expired, and he was released from custody. Id. Several months later, 

Feilke was arrested in South Carolina and was subsequently convicted and sentenced 
6

on the new criminal charges. Id. Feilke was then returned to Pennsylvania, where 

he pled guilty to the criminal charges incurred while on parole, and his bail was 

revoked. Id. Soon after, Feilke was returned to South Carolina. Id.

The Board denied Feilke credit against his subsequent Pennsylvania 

carceral sentence for a 13.5-month period of pre-sentence confinement, as he was 

either confined on a sentence in another state, had posted bail on the Pennsylvania 

charge, or remained in out-of-state custody. Feilke, 648 A.2d at 122. Feilke 

challenged this denial as violative of an alleged plea bargain between Feilke and the 

Commonwealth, which fixed the date on which service of the subsequent 

Pennsylvania sentence would commence. Id. at 122. 

Before this Court, Feilke argued that, as a matter of public policy, the 

Board should not be permitted to alter plea agreements between defendants and 

assistant district attorneys. Id. at 123. We acknowledged that “the Board and not 

the sentencing court must determine how custody credit shall be applied when a 

sentence is imposed for a crime committed during the period a defendant is on 

parole.” Id. at 123. However, we reasoned:

[T]he Board’s records contain a reference to the negotiated 

sentence but do not reflect the full terms of the plea 

bargain between Feilke and the Commonwealth, whether 

the plea bargain was stated in open court and is contained 

on the record of the sentencing proceedings, and whether 

all terms of the bargain were accepted by the sentencing 

judge . . . . Since the record is incomplete on this aspect 

of the case, a remand to the Board is required to determine 

the exact terms of the plea bargain, whether it is contained 

on the record, and whether the order of the sentencing 

court must be honored and Feilke given the benefit of his 

plea bargain. For this reason, the Board’s order is vacated 

and this case is remanded to the Board.
7

Feilke, 648 A.2d at 123-24.

Here, the August 26, 2021 sentencing order states that “[p]er 

stipulation, it is ordered that [Hill] is to receive credit of 367 days[’] time served[.]” 

C.R. at 116. Hill testified at the November 29, 2021 parole revocation hearing that 

pursuant to his “negotiated plea,” 367 days of time spent in pre-sentence 

confinement would be applied against his “new sentence,” with the remaining time 

credited as “backtime” against his original sentence. Id. at 83-84. However, we 

disagree with the Board’s assertion that the record concerning the plea agreement is 

clear. Rather, as in Feilke, “the full terms of the plea bargain . . . , whether the plea 

bargain was stated in open court and is contained on the record of the sentencing 

proceedings, and whether all terms of the bargain were accepted by the sentencing 

judge” is not evident from the record. Feilke, 648 A.2d at 123-24. 

Accordingly, in accordance with Feilke, we vacate the Board’s January 

27, 2023 order and remand the matter to the Board “to determine the exact terms of 

the plea bargain, whether it is contained on the record, and whether the order of the 

sentencing court must be honored and [Hill] given the benefit of his plea bargain.”

648 A.2d at 124. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Board’s January 27, 2023 

order and remand this matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion.

___________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Samuel Jaquel Hill, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Parole Board, : No. 134 C.D. 2023

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 20th day of December 2023, the January 27, 2023 

order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) is VACATED, and this matter is 

remanded to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with the foregoing 

opinion.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

_________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge