J-S07007-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

GREGORY RYAN HALL, JR.,

Appellant No. 583 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order February 27, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005452-2008

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2015

Appellant, Gregory Ryan Hall, appeals from the order granting him 

relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 et 

seq. Appellant claims that his sentence is illegal, as he was granted 336 

days’ time credit toward his sentence, but additional credit should have been 

applied. After careful review, we affirm.

On December 31, 2008, Appellant was sentenced to a term of five to 

ten years’ incarceration at CP-67-CR-0001003-2007. Appellant was then 

sentenced on federal charges to a concurrent term of 120 months’ 

incarceration on April 30, 2009. Finally, Appellant was sentenced on March 

3, 2010, in the instant case to a term of three to six years’ incarceration. 

This term of incarceration was structured to be served consecutively to 
J-S07007-15

- 2 -

Appellant’s federal sentence, and concurrently to the sentence imposed at 

CP-67-CR-0001003-2007.1 

On September 3, 2010, this Court vacated Appellant’s sentence at CP67-CR-0001003-2007, and remanded for a determination of whether the 

Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence to bring Appellant to trial, as 

Appellant’s trial date was beyond the constraints of Pa.Crim.P. Rule 600.2 

On November 21, 2011, the trial court determined that Rule 600 had been 

violated, and dismissed the charges against Appellant. On February 15, 

2012, Appellant filed a PCRA petition seeking to have the time he spent 

incarcerated at CP-67-CR-0001003-2007 applied to his sentence in the 

instant case. The PCRA court applied 504 days of credit toward Appellant’s 

sentence in the instant case. Appellant filed a notice of appeal with this 

Court, and we subsequently remanded for further development of the 

record. See Commonwealth v. Hall, 93 A.3d 500 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(unpublished memorandum). A hearing was held on February 27, 2014, 

after which the PCRA court applied a reduced amount of 336 days of credit 

towards Appellant’s sentence. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and 

a timely concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

____________________________________________

1 Appellant was arrested on the charges in the instant case prior to his 

conviction and sentencing in CP-67-CR-0001003-2007. 

2

In that decision, this Court concluded the instant PCRA petition was timely 

filed, and we possessed jurisdiction to review the merits of Appellant’s 

claims. See Commonwealth v. Hall, 13 A.3d 972 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(unpublished memorandum).
J-S07007-15

- 3 -

Appellant now raises the following question for our review:

I. [W]hether [] Appellant is entitled to credit for time served 

under 1003-2007 when said sentence was later vacated 

and the charges dismissed against Appellant. Appellant 

had already been arrested under 5462-2008 as of the time 

he began serving under 1003-2007.

Appellant’s brief at 2.

On appeal, Appellant claims that he was incarcerated from December 

31, 2008, to November 16, 2009, serving the sentence that was vacated by 

this Court at CP-67-CR-0001003-2007. Appellant does not specify how 

much time credit he believes he is due, only that he is “entitled to credit for 

the entire time.” Appellant’s brief at 5. The trial court applied credit from 

May 29, 2008, to April 30, 2009, toward Appellant’s sentence in the instant 

case. N.T., 2/27/14, at 20, 23. As such, it appears that Appellant claims on 

appeal he is due credit from April 30, 2009, to November 16, 2009.

Time credit is governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760, which states:

After reviewing the information submitted under section 9737 

(relating to report of outstanding charges and sentences) the 

court shall give credit as follows:

(1) Credit against the maximum term and any minimum term 

shall be given to the defendant for all time spent in custody as a 

result of the criminal charge for which a prison sentence is 

imposed or as a result of the conduct on which such a charge is 

based. Credit shall include credit for time spent in custody prior 

to trial, during trial, pending sentence, and pending the 

resolution of an appeal.

(2) Credit against the maximum term and any minimum term 

shall be given to the defendant for all time spent in custody 

under a prior sentence if he is later reprosecuted and 

resentenced for the same offense or for another offense based 

on the same act or acts. This shall include credit in accordance 

with paragraph (1) of this section for all time spent in custody as 
J-S07007-15

- 4 -

a result of both the original charge and any subsequent charge 

for the same offense or for another offense based on the same 

act or acts.

(3) If the defendant is serving multiple sentences, and if one of 

the sentences is set aside as the result of direct or collateral 

attack, credit against the maximum and any minimum term of 

the remaining sentences shall be given for all time served in 

relation to the sentence set aside since the commission of the 

offenses on which the sentences were based.

(4) If the defendant is arrested on one charge and later 

prosecuted on another charge growing out of an act or acts that 

occurred prior to his arrest, credit against the maximum term 

and any minimum term of any sentence resulting from such 

prosecution shall be given for all time spent in custody under the 

former charge that has not been credited against another 

sentence.

At Appellant’s hearing following remand, his federal sentencing order 

was offered into evidence. Pursuant to that order, Appellant’s federal 

sentence commenced the day that sentence was imposed, April 30, 2009. 

N.T., 2/27/14, at 5. Consequently, the PCRA court applied credit for the 

time Appellant was incarcerated prior to April 30, 2009, toward his sentence 

in the instant case. The PCRA court did not apply credit for the time 

Appellant was incarcerated after April 30, 2009, because the court found 

that credit had already been applied to Appellant’s federal sentence, and to 

impose that credit toward Appellant’s sentence in the instant case would be 

granting him “double credit.” Id. at 12. 

It is not error for a court to decline to award duplicate credit for time 

that has already been applied toward another sentence. See 

Commonwealth v. Bowser, 783 A.2d 348, 350 (Pa. Super. 2001). 

Appellant did not offer evidence that he had not received credit towards his 
J-S07007-15

- 5 -

federal sentence for the time he spent incarcerated beginning on April 30, 

2009. Therefore, we conclude Appellant’s claim is meritless.

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/10/2015