IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kevin Johnson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2009 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: March 18, 2016

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: July 18, 2016

Kevin Johnson (Johnson) petitions for review of the September 29, 2015

Decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), which

affirmed the Board’s decision mailed July 16, 2015 (July Decision) that denied

Johnson credit on his original sentence for the time he spent at ADAPPT 

Treatment Services (ADAPPT), a halfway house. The July Decision also 

reiterated that Johnson’s new parole violation maximum date of July 7, 2017, is 

correct. On appeal, Johnson argues that the Board erred in denying him credit on

his original sentence with the time he spent at ADAPPT on parole, pursuant to Cox 

v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985), because 

the conditions were the functional equivalent of incarceration. The Board 
2

concluded that Johnson did not meet his burden of proof entitling him to credit 

under Cox. Because we conclude that the Board did not act arbitrarily or plainly 

abuse its discretion in deciding that Johnson was not entitled to credit for the 

period of time he resided at ADAPPT, we affirm.

I. Background

Johnson was sentenced to an aggregate term of four to eight years in a state 

correctional institution (SCI) after pleading guilty to three counts of Drug 

Manufacture, Sale, Delivery, or Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled 

Substance; one count of Resisting Arrest; and one count of Violation of Probation 

– Resisting Arrest. (Sentence Status Summary, C.R. at 1, 3.) His original 

maximum date was set as November 29, 2015. (Id.) On October 9, 2012, Johnson 

was released on parole to ADAPPT, subject to certain special conditions, and 

resided there until November 28, 2012. (Evidentiary Hearing Report, C.R. at 105-

06; see also Conditions Governing Parole, C.R. at 30-31, 33-34.) Following his 

release from ADAPPT, Johnson remained at liberty on parole until August 30, 

2013.

On August 30, 2013, Johnson was arrested by the Reading City Police 

Department on new criminal charges1and confined in Berks County Prison. 

Johnson was unable to post bail on the charges. (C.R. at 78.) The Board issued a 

warrant to commit and detain Johnson the same day. (C.R. at 35.) The Board 

detained Johnson pending disposition of the criminal charges via decision recorded 

 

1

The new charges were: Delivery of a Controlled Substance – Marijuana; Possession 

with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance; and Possession of a Controlled Substance –

Marijuana. The latter two charges were dismissed subsequently. (C.R. at 48.)
3

on October 16, 2013. On January 9, 2014, Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of 

Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession with Intent to Deliver – Marijuana, and the 

Berks County Court of Common Pleas sentenced him to two to five years’

confinement in a SCI. (C.R. at 39-40, 43.) Johnson was placed in SCI-Graterford 

on January 21, 2014. (Moves Report, C.R. at 88.)

The Board thereafter conducted a parole revocation hearing on April 25, 

2014. (Hearing Report, C.R. at 57.) By Board decision mailed June 9, 2014, 

Johnson was recommitted as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to serve 12 months

backtime and was not given credit for time he spent at liberty on parole. (Order to 

Recommit, C.R. at 89; Board Decision, C.R. at 91.) At that time, Johnson owed 

1,146 days on his original sentence. (Order to Recommit, C.R. at 89.) Adding 

1,146 days to Johnson’s return to custody date of May 18, 2014,2resulted in a new 

maximum date of July 7, 2017. (Id.)

On July 7, 2014, Johnson filed a Petition for Administrative Review of the 

Board’s June 9, 2014 decision recommitting him as a CPV to serve 12 months 

backtime and recalculating his parole violation maximum date as July 17, 2017. 

(C.R. at 93-94.) In the petition, Johnson argued that the Board erred in 

recalculating his new maximum date because it failed to award proper credit for 

the period of time Johnson resided at ADAPPT. (C.R. at 94-95.)3 By letter mailed 

 

2 By decision recorded March 30, 2015, Johnson was paroled to a state detainer sentence 

and was ordered to “complete any remaining required correctional program(s) from [his] current 

sentence.” (C.R. at 125-28, 130.)

3

Specifically, Johnson argued that the Board erroneously added 11 extra months to his 

original sentence. (C.R. at 94.) Johnson contended that credit only should have been denied for 

the approximately nine months from December 2012 to August 30, 2013 he was at liberty on 

parole following his release from ADAPPT. (C.R. at 95.) Thus, Johnson requested credit for the 

approximately 50 days he spent at ADAPPT.
4

December 12, 2014, the Board indicated that an evidentiary hearing would be 

scheduled to determine whether Johnson was entitled to any credit for his time 

spent at ADAPPT. (Board Letter to Johnson (December 12, 2014), C.R. at 101.) 

The hearing was held on February 24, 2015. (C.R. at 102.)

At the hearing, Johnson testified that he was sent to ADAPPT from October 

9, 2012 to November 28, 2012. Johnson testified that there was no fence around 

the facility, the doors locked from both the inside and outside, and the windows 

were nailed shut. (Hr’g Tr. at 8.)4 Johnson stated that residents had to submit to 

urine tests and pat-down searches and stand for count. (Hr’g Tr. at 8-9.) He 

testified that he was housed with some pre-release inmates from the Department of 

Corrections, but that most of the residents were on state parole. (Hr’g Tr. at 8.) He 

stated that the pre-release inmates were subject to mostly the same stipulations as 

parolees, though pre-release inmates could get furloughs for an entire weekend. 

(Hr’g Tr. at 9-10.) Johnson testified that he was allowed to go out and look for 

work, like pre-release inmates, and that he had to attend certain programs in order 

to receive passes to obtain the privilege. (Hr’g Tr. at 9-10.) Johnson further 

testified that his family could visit him in ADAPPT’s visiting room, and that he 

could go and visit them for a certain number of hours. (Hr’g Tr. at 10.)

William George (George), an ADAPPT Supervisor, testified that there is no 

fence around the ADAPPT facility, the doors lock from the outside only, and there 

is nothing stopping the residents from leaving the facility. (Hr’g Tr. at 12-13.) 

George testified that ADAPPT staff can only ask residents not to leave, but that 

residents could walk out on their own. (Hr’g Tr. at 13.) On cross-examination by 

Johnson’s counsel, George testified that the pre-release inmates housed at 

 

4

The hearing transcript can be found on pages 108-124 of the certified record.
5

ADAPPT were “under the same rules and regulations, except for the A[lcohol] and 

D[rug] part.” (Hr’g Tr. at 14.) George stated “[t]hat’s where they get locked in 

24/7 and they’re not allowed out. If you’re in the group home, you’re allowed out 

for a certain amount of time during the day to go to your job and things like that.” 

(Hr’g Tr. at 14.) George testified that both parolees and pre-release inmates were 

subject to random searches. (Hr’g Tr. at 14-15.)

Based on this testimony, the Board in its July Decision found that ADAPPT 

did not restrict Johnson’s ability to leave the program because the doors were 

locked only from the outside to prevent people from entering the building, and 

ADAPPT staff would not restrain or detain any residents from leaving without 

authorization. (July Decision, Finding of Fact (FOF) ¶ 3.) Additionally, the Board 

found that there was no fence around the facility to prevent Johnson from leaving

at any time. (Id.) Lastly, the Board found that “given the proper privileges 

through treatment attendance, all [residents] could walk in the community within 

certain timeframes.” (Id.) The Board concluded that the restrictions on Johnson’s 

liberty while he resided at ADAPPT were not the equivalent of incarceration and, 

therefore, Johnson did not meet his burden of proof entitling him to credit under

Cox, 493 A.2d at 683. (July Decision, Conclusions of Law (COL) ¶¶ 2-4.) 

Accordingly, the Board denied Johnson credit for the time he spent at ADAPPT.

Johnson filed an Administrative Remedies Form on July 30, 2015, 

challenging the Board’s denial of credit on his original sentence for the time he 

spent at ADAPPT. (Administrative Remedies Form, C.R. at 135-36.) In his 

appeal, Johnson argued that he met his burden under Cox and proved that his time 

at ADAPPT was the equivalent of incarceration because: (1) “he was confined 

there with . . . [p]re-[r]elease [i]nmates serving their sentences under [] identical 
6

constraints and conditions”; and (2) “he was subjected to suspicion-less searches of 

his person and property, which can only be done to prison inmates.” (Id. at 2, C.R. 

at 136.) By decision mailed September 29, 2015, the Board denied the appeal and 

affirmed its July 16, 2015 decision. (Board Decision, C.R. at 137-38.) This appeal 

followed.5

II. Discussion

On appeal, Johnson argues that the Board failed to credit his parole violation 

maximum date with all the time to which he was entitled when it determined that 

he was at liberty on parole while he resided at ADAPPT. Johnson argues that he 

met his burden of proving that his liberty was sufficiently restrained at ADAPPT 

such that it was the functional equivalent of incarceration. Johnson contends that 

the restrictions on his liberty were at least the same as, or greater than, the 

restrictions on the pre-release inmates who also resided at ADAPPT because he 

was subject to the same rules and regulations as those inmates, and he was subject 

to random suspicion-less searches of his person and property. Johnson requests, 

just as the parolee did in Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 

120 A.3d 1116 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 123 A.3d 

1293 (Pa. 2015), that this Court revisit our decision in Torres v. Pennsylvania 

Board of Probation and Parole, 861 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (Friedman, 

J., concurring), “and hold, consistent with the Torres concurrence, that the 

parolee’s burden is satisfied when he establishes that he suffered at least the same 

 

5 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.” Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 77 A.3d 66, 70 

n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
7

restrictions as pre-release inmates serving a state sentence at the same treatment 

facility.” (Johnson’s Br. at 13.) Johnson thus argues that his time at ADAPPT was 

the functional equivalent of incarceration and not subject to forfeiture after his 

subsequent recommitment as a CPV.

The Board responds that it did not act arbitrarily or plainly abuse its 

discretion by deciding that Johnson was not entitled to credit for the period he 

resided at ADAPPT Treatment Services. Based on the testimony offered at the 

evidentiary hearing, the Board found that: anyone could leave ADAPPT at any 

time; there was no fence around the facility to prevent residents from leaving; 

residents could come and go within certain timeframes; and, staff members did not 

prevent residents from leaving. Thus, the Board argues, those factors support a 

determination that Johnson’s time at ADAPPT was not the equivalent of 

incarceration, and there is no new basis to overrule this Court’s decision in 

Medina.

III. Analysis

Section 6138(a)(2) of the Parole Code provides that a parolee who is 

recommitted as a CPV, as Johnson was here, “shall be reentered to serve the 

remainder of the term which the parolee would have been compelled to serve had 

the parole not been granted and . . . shall be given no credit for the time at liberty 

on parole.” 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(2). The Parole Code does not define “at liberty 

on parole.” However, our Supreme Court has held that “at liberty” does not mean 

freedom from all types of confinement. Cox, 493 A.2d at 683. A CPV who seeks 

credit on his original sentence for time spent in a halfway house or group home

bears the burden of showing that the specific characteristics of a program 
8

constitute restrictions on the parolee’s liberty sufficient to warrant credit. Id. at 

683. In our recent decision in Medina, we reiterated the two most important 

factors to be considered in determining whether a halfway house is sufficiently 

restrictive so as to be equivalent to incarceration: (1) whether the resident is 

locked in; and (2) whether the resident is able to leave the facility without being 

physically restrained. Medina, 120 A.3d at 1120-21. These matters are evaluated 

on a case-by-case basis, Torres, 861 A.2d at 397, and this Court “will not interfere 

with the Board’s determination . . . unless it acts arbitrarily or plainly abuses its 

discretion,” Cox, 493 A.2d at 683.

Despite the foregoing principles, Johnson requests that this Court adopt the 

analysis in the concurring opinion in Torres and hold that he established his burden 

because he suffered at least the same restrictions as pre-release inmates at the same 

facility, including being subject to random suspicion-less searches. See Torres,

861 A.2d at 402 (Friedman, J., concurring). In Torres, this Court held that the 

parolee was entitled to credit for the first 45 days spent at the ConewagoWernersville inpatient drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility because during that 

time period, the parolee was not permitted to go anywhere outside the facility 

except to drug and alcohol rehabilitation or other weekly meetings, to which he 

was escorted by a staff member. Torres, 861 A.2d at 399-400. In so holding, this 

Court stated that “when the restrictions upon a parolee become such that they 

destroy any sense of being ‘at liberty on parole’ and, consequently, meet the Cox

standard,” credit should be given. Id. at 401. In the concurring opinion in Torres

however, Judge Friedman recognized that pre-release inmates residing in such 

treatment centers always receive credit for their stay. Torres, 861 A.2d at 402 

(Friedman, J., concurring). Thus, Judge Friedman posited that parolees should be 
9

able to meet their burden under Cox by proving that the restrictions on their liberty 

are identical to those of pre-release inmates also residing at such facilities. Id.

While Johnson’s argument based on the concurring opinion in Torres is a 

compelling one, Medina is binding here.

6

 In Medina, this Court held that “parolees 

are not entitled to credit for periods in which they reside in community corrections 

centers (CCCs), [community corrections facilities] CCFs, or inpatient treatment 

programs where the Board determines the parolees did not meet their burden of 

proving the restrictions on their liberty were the equivalent of incarceration.” 

Medina, 120 A.3d at 1119. This Court also explicitly rejected the analysis set forth 

in the concurring opinion in Torres. See Medina, 120 A.3d at 1121-22 (“[C]iting 

the concurring opinion in Torres . . . Medina claims he met his burden by 

establishing he was subject to all the rules required of state inmates at Liberty 

Management CCF. We reject this argument . . . [and have] repeatedly declined to 

adopt the position advanced by Medina.”) (citations omitted). We clarified that 

“the Cox analysis requires a parolee to show the specific restrictions on his liberty 

at a particular facility are the equivalent of incarceration; thus, the Cox comparison 

is between restrictions on the parolee at a facility and restrictions on the parolee 

while he was in prison.” Id. at 1123-24 (emphasis in original).

In the instant matter, the Board did not find that Johnson established that he 

suffered the same restrictions as pre-release inmates at ADAPPT. Instead, the 

 

6 While I continue to respectfully disagree with my colleagues concerning the issue of 

whether parolees housed at CCCs should also be entitled to credit, like pre-release inmates, for 

the time they reside in such facilities for the reasons set forth in then-President Judge Pellegrini’s 

dissenting opinion in Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 120 A.3d 1116, 

1125-28 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Pellegrini, J., dissenting), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 120 

A.3d 1293 (Pa. 2015), I am constrained to follow this Court’s binding decision in that case.
10

Board specifically credited7 George’s testimony concerning the nature of the 

ADAPPT facility and made the following relevant findings of fact: the doors are 

locked only from the outside; anyone could leave the program at any time, there is 

no fence around ADAPPT; all residents could walk in the community within 

certain timeframes, provided that they earn the privilege to do so by attending 

treatment; and staff members do not physically restrain or prevent residents from 

leaving without permission. (FOF ¶ 3.) Thus, Johnson was not locked in the 

facility and could have walked right out the door without any staff member 

stopping him. These findings support the Board’s determination that Johnson is 

not entitled to credit under Cox for the time period he resided at ADAPPT because 

the conditions there were not sufficiently restrictive so as to be equivalent to 

incarceration. See, e.g., Harden v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 980 A.2d 691, 699

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (“Facilities are not prison-like if they lack fences or have 

fences with gates that open from the inside; have doors and windows locked from 

the outside, not the inside, to prevent entry not exit; lack guards stationed to 

prevent residents from leaving; and do not attempt to use physical force by staff 

members to stop an inpatient from leaving.”).

Accordingly, we conclude that the Board did not act arbitrarily or plainly 

abuse its discretion when it denied Johnson credit on his original sentence for the 

period of time he resided at ADAPPT.

 

7

“Questions of evidentiary weight and credibility are within the province of the Board . . 

. and it is free to reject even uncontradicted testimony.” Pastuszek v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and 

Parole, 544 A.2d 1051, 1053 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (internal citations omitted).
11

For the foregoing reasons, the Board’s Decision is affirmed.

________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kevin Johnson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2009 C.D. 2015

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

NOW, July 18, 2016, the Decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation 

and Parole, entered in the above-captioned matter, is AFFIRMED.

________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kevin Johnson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2009 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: March 18, 2016

Pennsylvania Board of Probation :

and Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

CONCURRING OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: July 18, 2016

I concur with the scholarly opinion of the majority. While the 

majority opinion is a correct statement of the present law, I think that it is time that 

this Court revisit Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 120 

A.3d 1116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), and adopt the rationale of the Honorable Rochelle 

Friedman’s concurring opinion in Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and 

Parole, 861 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

I question the wisdom of imposing lengthy punitive sentences for 

marijuana possession offenses. In an era when smoking marijuana is legal in 

several states, I question imposing extensive and expensive periods of 

incarceration when the cost of maintaining our state prison system is almost 7% of 

the Commonwealth budget. 

______________________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge