IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Arthur Sanders, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 663 C.D. 2019

: Submitted: November 15, 2019

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and :

Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: March 3, 2020

Arthur Sanders, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at 

Rockview, petitions for review of an adjudication of the Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole (Parole Board) that recommitted him to serve 24 months’

backtime and recalculated a new maximum sentence date. Sanders challenges the 

Parole Board’s maximum sentence date. David Crowley, Esq., (Counsel) has 

petitioned for leave to withdraw from representation of Sanders. For the following 

reasons, we grant Counsel’s petition and affirm the Parole Board.

On January 4, 2016, Sanders pled guilty to two counts of possession 

with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance, in violation of Section 

13(a)(30) of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (Drug Act).1 

He received a total sentence of nine months to three years for a maximum sentence 

date of February 8, 2019. 

 

1 Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, as amended, 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(30).
2

On November 16, 2016, Sanders was paroled. On January 20, 2018, he 

was arrested by the Upper Darby Police because he was in possession of 73 heroin 

packets. Bail was set at $50,000, which Sanders did not post. On April 30, 2018, 

Sanders pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, in 

violation of Section 13(a)(30) of the Drug Act, for which he was sentenced to 33 to 

66 months of confinement. 

On July 27, 2018, based on the new criminal conviction, the Parole

Board conducted a parole revocation hearing.2 Parole Agent Leshia Evans offered

into evidence documents that certified Sanders’ new criminal conviction. Agent 

Evans noted that the new conviction was a felony and that the sentence included the 

forfeiture of Sanders’ vehicle and cell phone. Documents relating to Sanders’ parole 

supervision history were also entered into the record.

Sanders testified that while on parole, he lived with his girlfriend and 

two children. First, he worked at his father’s boxing gym. Later, he opened a boxing 

gym of his own and has begun construction on a second gym. He also coaches his 

son’s little league team. 

Sanders testified about the circumstances of his new conviction. He 

stated that he agreed to sell a vehicle to a friend, who made monthly payments of 

$200. Sanders kept the vehicle titled in his name until the terms of sale were

completed. Sanders collected the $200 monthly payments in person. Sanders

testified that he did not know his friend was using the vehicle for drug trafficking, 

for which the friend was under police surveillance. Sanders’ routine visits to his 

friend’s house looked suspicious to police, who believed Sanders was involved. 

 

2 The hearing was before a hearing examiner because Sanders waived his right to a panel hearing. 

Sanders was represented by counsel.
3

When the police served a warrant at the friend’s house, Sanders was present. 

Sanders testified that he pled guilty because his friend’s home was in a school zone 

and he faced the risk of a lengthy sentence. 

The Parole Board recommitted Sanders as a convicted parole violator 

to serve 24 months’ backtime. The Parole Board awarded him no credit for the time 

spent at liberty on parole based upon his poor supervision history.3 His maximum 

sentence date was recalculated to November 12, 2020. 

Sanders filed an administrative appeal, asserting that the Parole Board 

lacked jurisdiction to change his maximum sentence date because only the 

sentencing court could do this. He claimed that the Parole Board increased his 

original sentence based on the new criminal charges and that this constituted double 

jeopardy. 

In its denial of Sanders’ administrative appeal, the Parole Board 

explained that it has exclusive authority over whether Sanders would be given 

sentence credit for his time at liberty on parole, known as “street time.” It also 

explained that the time Sanders spent incarcerated on the new charges could not be 

credited to his original sentence, but only to his new sentence. 

Sanders filed a petition for this Court’s review. Thereafter, Counsel 

filed a petition for leave to withdraw from his representation of Sanders and a nomerit letter stating that there was no factual or legal basis for the appeal.

 

3 Specifically, Sanders did not offer any proof of employment or earnings from his alleged job at 

the gym. Sanders had removed himself from participation in a life skills group. Although Sanders 

was hired as a mechanic, he never reported to the job. Sanders did not report as scheduled to the 

parole office and was not always available for field visits. 
4

The technical requirements for appointed counsel seeking to withdraw 

from representation of a parolee are set forth in Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 

927 (Pa. 1988). As summarized by this Court,

counsel seeking to withdraw from representation of a petitioner 

seeking review of a determination of the Board must provide a 

“no-merit” letter which details “the nature and extent of [the 

attorney’s] review and list[s] each issue the petitioner wished to 

have raised, with counsel’s explanation of why those issues are 

meritless.”

Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 961 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). “Although [the parolee’s] 

issue may prove not to be meritorious, it is still incumbent upon [c]ounsel to include 

it in the No–Merit Letter and explain why it is meritless.” Id. at 962. If this Court 

determines that counsel’s no-merit letter complies with the requirements of Turner,

we then consider the merits of the parolee’s appeal. Id. at 960.

In the matter sub judice, Counsel has satisfied the technical 

requirements of Turner. In his no-merit letter, Counsel thoroughly analyzed 

Sanders’ arguments on appeal and explained why they lack merit. Counsel served a 

copy of the no-merit letter on Sanders on September 10, 2019, and advised Sanders

he could either obtain new counsel or proceed pro se. This Court entered an order 

advising Sanders that he had 30 days to file a brief in support of the merits of the 

petition for review. See Sanders v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

(Pa. Cmwlth., No. 663 C.D. 2019, filed September 11, 2019) (per curiam). Sanders 

has not filed a brief. 

Having determined that Counsel has complied with the requirements of 

Turner, we turn to the merits of Sanders’ request for relief.
5

Sanders argues that it violates double jeopardy4to be punished by both 

the sentencing court and the Parole Board for the same crime. Because of his new 

criminal sentence, the Parole Board imposed additional time on his original 

sentence. We reject this argument. 

First, the Parole Board did not change the length of Sanders’ judicially 

imposed original sentence:

When a parolee violates the terms and conditions of his parole, 

the Board may recommit him to serve all or part of the remainder 

of his original sentence. Yates v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 48 

A.3d 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). The time served on 

recommitment is known as backtime. Id. Thus, backtime cannot 

exceed the time remaining on the original judicial sentence. Id. 

By definition, when the Board imposes backtime, it does not alter 

a judicially [] imposed sentence; it simply requires the prisoner 

to serve some or all of the time remaining on the original 

sentence. Id. The Board is authorized to recalculate the 

maximum date of a sentence beyond the original date where it is 

not adding to the total length of the sentence. Hughes v. Pa. Bd. 

of Prob. & Parole, 179 A.3d 117 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (maximum 

length of sentence, not maximum date, is controlling).

Marshall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 200 A.3d 643, 648 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2018). Denying credit for time spent at liberty on parole does not extend 

the time an inmate is subject to incarceration on the original sentence; it merely 

denies credit for time spent at liberty towards the original sentence. The Parole 

Board’s “action was not the imposition of a new sentence but merely directed 

 

4 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, “nor shall any 

person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. CONST. 

amend. V. Likewise, Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, in pertinent 

part, “[n]o person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb....” PA.

CONST. art. I, §10.
6

completion of the original judicially imposed sentence.” McClure v. Pennsylvania 

Board of Probation and Parole, 461 A.2d 645, 646 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). 

Second, the Parole Board’s order did not place Sanders in double 

jeopardy, which extends to double punishment in “criminal prosecutions.” 

McClure, 461 A.2d at 647 (emphasis in original). Administrative actions of the 

Parole Board do not constitute criminal prosecutions. “The fact that [a parolee’s] 

conduct constitutes a criminal offense for which he was arrested and convicted does 

not transform the parole hearing into a prosecution.” Hughes v. Pennsylvania Board 

of Probation and Parole, 473 A.2d 225, 228 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). Sanders’ double 

jeopardy argument lacks merit.

Finally, the Parole Board properly calculated Sanders’ parole violation 

maximum sentence date. It is well established that “time spent in custody pursuant 

to a detainer warrant shall be credited to a convicted parole violator’s original term 

... only when the parolee was eligible for and had satisfied bail requirements for the 

new offense and thus remained incarcerated only by reason of the detainer warrant 

lodged against him.” Barnes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 203 

A.3d 382, 392 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. 1980)). Only where the parolee “is 

being held in custody solely because of a detainer lodged by the [Parole] Board” is

the time that he spent in custody credited to his original sentence. Id. (emphasis in 

original). Conversely, if a parolee “remains incarcerated prior to trial because he 

has failed to satisfy bail requirements on the new criminal charges, then the time 

spent in custody shall be credited to his new sentence.” Id. 

When Sanders was reparoled from a state correctional institution on 

November 8, 2016, he had 822 days remaining on his sentence. On January 19, 
7

2018, the Parole Board lodged a detainer against Sanders. Then, on January 20, 

2018, he was arrested on new criminal charges and did not post bail. Subsequently, 

Sanders was convicted on the new criminal charges and sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment. 

In recommitting Sanders as a convicted parole violator, the Parole 

Board credited him for the one day he was detained solely on the Board’s warrant,

i.e., January 19, 2018, to January 20, 2018. Certified Record at 74. Subtracting the 

1 day from the 822 days of Sanders’ original sentence resulted in 821 days remaining 

on that sentence. Because Sanders did not post bail on the new criminal charges, his 

time spent in custody was credited to his new sentence. See Barnes, 203 A.3d at 

392. Ultimately, Sanders became available to begin service of his original sentence 

on August 14, 2018. Adding 821 days to August 14, 2018, results in a maximum 

sentence date of November 12, 2020. 

For the above reasons, we grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw his 

representation and affirm the order of the Board.

 _____________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Arthur Sanders, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 663 C.D. 2019

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and :

Parole, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 2020, the order of the Pennsylvania 

Board of Probation and Parole, dated May 9, 2019, is hereby AFFIRMED, and the 

petition for leave to withdraw as counsel filed by David R. Crowley is GRANTED.

 _____________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge