IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Chasity Williams, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 739 C.D. 2017

: Submitted: December 8, 2017

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: January 4, 2018

Chasity Williams (Parolee), an inmate currently incarcerated at the 

State Correctional Institution at Muncy, petitions for review of the decision of the 

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

administrative relief from the Board’s order recalculating her maximum sentence 

following her recommitment as a convicted parole violator, with no credit for her 

time spent at liberty on parole. Because the parties agree that the Board abused its 

discretion when failing to provide a contemporaneous statement explaining the 

rationale for denying Parolee credit for time spent at liberty on parole, we vacate 

the Board’s decision and remand the matter to the Board for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision.
2

In 2008, Parolee was sentenced to three years, six months and eight 

days to twelve years of imprisonment, with a minimum release date of February

24, 2013, and a maximum release date of January 15, 2020. On November 25, 

2013, Parolee was released on parole and, per special conditions, was to report 

directly to Conewago Pottsville (CCC) and remain there until discharged.1 

Because Parolee failed to meet her parole agent at her registered residence, on 

September 15, 2014, the Board declared her delinquent. Two days later, she was 

arrested by the Manheim Township Police Department for new criminal charges as 

well as technical parole violations. The Board lodged its detainer on the same day. 

Bail was eventually set on October 8, 2014, but Parolee did not post bail.

Following a violation hearing, on January 14, 2015, the Board voted 

“preponderance NOT found” for the technical parole violations. (Certified Record 

(C.R.) at 86.) Notwithstanding, Parolee remained detained pending the disposition 

of her new criminal charges. On October 23, 2015, Parolee pled guilty to four 

felony counts of Acquiring or Obtaining Possession of a Controlled Substance by 

Misrepresentation and was sentenced to one to two years of imprisonment with 

credit for time served.

On November 5, 2015, the Board issued a Notice of Charges and 

Hearing for a revocation hearing pertaining to Parolee’s new convictions, after 

 

1 The parole conditions that the Parolee signed also state, in pertinent part, “If 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.” (Certified 

Record (C.R.) at 44.)
3

which Parolee waived her right to a hearing and counsel. On January 29, 2016, the 

Board issued a decision revoking Parolee’s parole as a convicted parole violator

and sentenced her to serve 24 months backtime and recalculated her maximum 

expiration date as February 14, 2022. The Board did not offer any explanation for 

denying Parolee credit for time spent at liberty on parole.

Parolee then filed a request for administrative relief, contending that 

the Board erred when recalculating her maximum sentence expiration date. The 

Board denied that request, explaining:

The Board paroled you from your sentence imposed to be 

served at a state correctional institution (“SCI”) on July 

3, 2012 with a max date of May 28, 2019. This left you 

with 2520 days remaining on your sentence (from 

07/03/2012 to 05/28/2019 = 2520 days). The Board’s 

decision to recommit you authorized the recalculation of 

your sentence to reflect that you received no credit for 

time you were at liberty on parole. 61 Pa.C.S. § 

6138(a)(2). The Board did not grant you credit for time 

at liberty on parole in this instance. This means you still 

had 2520 days remaining on your sentence.

On September 17, 2014, you were detained by the Board 

for technical parole violations. On October 8, 2014, 

authorities detained you for criminal charges docketed in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County at OP# 

5367-2014. There is no indication that you posted bail 

from the new criminal charges and you do not claim that 

you posted bail. You pled guilty to the criminal charges 

on October 23, 2015 and the court sentenced you to a 

new term of imprisonment to be served in an SCI.

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Board gave you 

21 days of credit for the period you were confined solely 

on the Board warrant from September 17, 2014 to 

October 8, 2014. The Board did not give you any credit 
4

on your original sentence for the period you were 

incarcerated from October 8, 2014 to January 16, 2016 

because you were confined on both the new criminal 

charges and the board detainer or solely on the new 

criminal charges during this period. As such, credit for 

that time must apply to your new sentence when it is 

calculated. Gaito v. Board of Probation and Parole, 412 

A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980). Subtracting the 21 days of credit 

from the 2520 days you had remaining on the original 

sentence, left you with 2499 days to serve on your 

original sentence.

(C.R. at 150.) Once again, the Board did not explain the rationale for denying 

Parolee credit for time spent at liberty on parole.

After Parolee filed this petition for review, on April 26, 2017, our 

Supreme Court issued the decision, Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation 

and Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017). Significantly, in Pittman, our Supreme 

Court held that, except in certain explicitly excluded categories of crimes, Section 

6138(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Code)

2

requires the Board to “provide a 

 

2

61 Pa.C.S. §§ 101 – 6309. Section 6138(a) of the Code provides, in pertinent part:

(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 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
5

contemporaneous statement explaining its reason for denying a [convicted parole 

violator] credit for time spent at liberty on parole.” 159 A.3d at 475. As the Court 

explained:

[W]e recognize that the Board has the broadest of 

discretion over many decisions regarding parolees and 

that the Board’s description of the statute is accurate in 

so far as there is no explicit requirement that the Board 

must provide a contemporaneous statement explaining its 

decision in Subsection 6138(a)(2.1). However, Article 

V, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution grants all 

persons the right to appeal from an administrative agency 

to a court of record. Pa. Const. Art. 5, § 9 (“. . . there 

shall also be a right of appeal from a court of record or 

from an administrative agency to a court of record or to 

an appellate court, the selection of such court to be as 

 

(continued...)

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).

(ii) The parolee was recommitted under section 6143 

(relating to early parole of inmates subject to Federal removal 

order).

61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(1)-(2.1) (emphasis added).
6

provided by law[.]”). This is consistent with inherent 

notions of due process. To the extent Appellant has a 

right to appeal, an appellate court hearing the matter must 

have method to assess the Board’s exercise of discretion. 

Accordingly, we hold that the Board must articulate the 

basis for its decision to grant or deny a [convicted parole 

violator] credit for time served at liberty on parole.

Id. at 474.

3

On appeal, both parties agree that the Board abused its discretion by 

failing to articulate the basis for denying Parolee credit for her time spent at liberty 

on parole.4 Accordingly, in light of the Board’s admitted failure and our Supreme 

Court’s holding in Pittman, we vacate the Board’s order and remand the matter to 

the Board for the sole purpose of articulating its reason for denying Parolee credit 

for her time served at liberty on parole.

___________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

 

3 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board's decision is supported 

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

were 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 Parolee’s counsel now submits that all other issues raised in Parolee’s petition for 

review lack merit. (See Parolee’s Brief at 14.)
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Chasity Williams, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 739 C.D. 2017

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4

th day of January, 2018, it is hereby ordered that the 

order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), dated February 13, 

2017, is vacated and the matter is remanded to the Board to articulate the reasons for 

denying Chasity Williams credit for time at “liberty on parole.” The Board shall 

forward its reasons for the denial to this court within forty-five (45) days of the date 

of this order.

___________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge