J-S03002-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

LATEEF KHADEEN WATTS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MCGINLEY, 

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION 

AND PAROLE,

Appellees No. 2845 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered July 31, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0008178-2005

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 26, 2018

Lateef Khadeen Watts (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order 

entered on July 31, 2017, that dismissed his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus on the basis that Appellant’s maximum sentence had not yet expired 

and, therefore, the claims Appellant asserted did not fall within the trial 

court’s jurisdiction, citing Commonwealth, Department of Correction v.

Reese, 774 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2001). After review, we affirm. 

As stated verbatim in his brief, Appellant raises the following issues in 

this appeal:

[A.] Did the Common Pleas Court err in dismissing Appellant’s 

habeas Corpus Petition under the auspice that his original 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S03002-18

- 2 -

judgment of sentence was NOT completed, thus, misapplying the 

facts for which was presented, and dismissing his habeas Petition 

erroneously?

[B.] Did the court of Common Pleas err in dismissing Appellant 

Habeas Corpus Petition where he suffers a unconstitutional 

detention against a judicially imposed order issued by Delaware 

Count court of Common Pleas whereas Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole unconstitutionally altered his original 

maximum sentence without constitutional, statutory, and judicial 

authority, thus violating Appellant’s 14th, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 5th

Amendment rights y a continued forced incarceration? 

[C.] Whether the Court of Common Pleas err’d in dismissing 

Appellant’s Habeas Corpus Petition when his rights to the Due 

Process Clause “Liberty Interest” continues to be violated by 

Governmental State Agency, pursuant to both State and Federal 

Constitutional mandates? 

Appellant’s brief at 4. 

Despite Appellant’s statement of the issues that he attempts to raise in 

this appeal, the essence of his arguments centers on his allegation that the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) erred in recalculating his 

maximum release date, which this Court stated in Reese is not a proper use 

of a writ of habeas corpus. See Reese, 774 A.2d at 1261. Moreover, under 

the circumstances here, Appellant’s challenge should proceed through the 

PBPP’s administrative process with any appeal directed to the 

Commonwealth Court. See id. at 1260. 

We have reviewed the certified record, Appellant’s brief,1the 

applicable law, and the opinion authored by the Honorable James P. Bradley 

____________________________________________

1 The Commonwealth/PBPP has not submitted a brief in connection with this 

appeal. 
J-S03002-18

- 3 -

of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, dated September 20, 

2017. We conclude that Judge Bradley’s opinion accurately disposes of the 

arguments raised by Appellant on appeal and we discern no abuse of 

discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Bradley’s opinion as 

our own and affirm the July 31, 2017 order on that basis. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/26/18
Circulated 03/01/2018 08:53 AM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

vs. 

LATEEF WATTS 

CP-23-CR-8178-2005 

2845 EDA 2017 

A. Sheldon Kovach, Esquire, on behalf of the Commonwealth 

Lateef Watts, prose 

Bradley, J. 

OPINION 

FILED: q {aol (1 

Defendant, Lateef Watts, entered a negotiated guilty plea in the above matter before 

the Honorable Chad F. Kenney, Sr., on April 5, 2006. He was sentenced to a thirty-six to 

seventy-two month term of incarceration for possession with intent to deliver 19.67 grams of 

cocaine. 

On July 19, 2017 Defendant filed a "Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 42 Pa.CS.A. 

§§ 6501-6505. The petition was dismissed without a hearing on July 31, 2017. In the Order 

dismissing the petition the court explained, that because Petitioner's maximum sentence had 

not yet expired the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the trial court, citing 

Commonwealth Dep't of Corrections v. Reese, 774 A.2d 1255, 1261 (Pa. Super. 2001) 

(challenge the Board of Probation and Parole's recalculation of maximum release date is not 

1 
a proper use of the writ of habeas corpus). Defendant filed a timely appeal, necessitating this 

Opinion. 

Petitioner was convicted of drug offenses in four different cases

1 in Delaware County. 

The petition alleges that he was released on parole by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation 

and Parole (PBPP) on August 25, 2010 and later detained on new criminal charges that arose 

from an arrest in the City of Chester. He entered a negotiated plea to persons not to possess 

a firearm, 18 Pa.CS.A. § 6105(A), on December 17, 2013 and was sentenced to thirty to 

seventy-two months of incarceration. On February 10, 2014 parole on his state sentence 

was revoked by the PBPP and he was recommitted. His maximum sentence has been 

recalculated to December 23, 2018. Petitioner objected to this recalculation and, inter alia, 

sought relief administratively before the PBPP and in the Commonwealth Court. Petitioner 

alleges that he has also sought relief in the Federal District Court and that a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus filed there was dismissed on January 21, 2016. 

Petitioner alleged that he ls illegally being held beyond his original maximum sentence 

and therefore seeks relief before this court by way of the writ of habeas corpus ad 

subjiciendum. The essence of his complaint however, is with the PBPP's recalculation of 

sentence after he was found in violation of his state parole following new convictions. 

1 Case Number 252-06 (sentence of 30 days of probation imposed on 4/5/06); Case Number 3387-06 

(sentence of 1 to 2 years of incarceration imposed on 5/31 /06); Case Number 253-06 (sentence 12- 

36 months of incarceration imposed on 4 /5/06); Case Number 8 l 78-2005 (sentence of 36-72 

months incarceration imposed on 4/5/06). In Philadelphia County (CP-51-CR-0406421-2004) the 

Petitioner was convicted of carrying firearms without a license. He was found in violation of his 

sentence in that case on September 12, 2007. 

2 
When a maximum sentence of more than two years (a "state sentence) is imposed the 

authority to authority to grant or revoke parole is vested exclusively in the PBPP. See 

.Commonwealth Department of Corrections v. Reese, supra, citing Commonwealth v. 

' Tiighman, 652 A.2d 390, 391 (Pa. Super. 1995). The PBPP "has exclusive power 'to parole 

and reparole, commit and recommit for violations of parole, and to discharge from parole .... ' 

61 P.S. § 331.17. [and] may extend the expiration of an offender's maximum sentence upon 

C> 

his recommitment as a convicted parole violator." Id. qljoting Eckert v. Pa. Bd. of Probation 

and Parole, 381 A.2d 1030 (Pa. Comwlth. 1978). A parolee may request administrative 

review of a PBPP determination and seek appellate review of administrative parole orders in 

the Commonwealth Court. Id. See also Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. 

2015) (issues relating to the calculation of sentence must be raised through administrative 

proceedings or in the Commonwealth Court). 

In Reese, supra, the court described the nature of the writ of habeas corpus. 

The writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that is available 

after other remedies have been exhausted or are ineffectual or nonexistent 

Moore v. Roth, 231 Pa.Super. 464, 331 A.2d 509, 511 (1974) (citation omitted). 

The writ will not issue if another remedy exists and is available. Id. The 

writ is not a substitute for appellate review. Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 413 

Pa.Super. 583, 605 A.2d 1271 (1992); see Wilson v. Commonwealth, Bureau of 

Corrections, 85 Pa.Cmwlth. 32, 480 A.2d 392 (1984) (holding that a petition 

seeking the correction of the Board's action in aggregating a defendant's two 

sentences does not sound in habeas corpus ); cf. Brown v. Dept. of Corrections, 

144 Pa.Cmwlth. 610, 601 A.2d 1345 (1992) (holding that a petition in which 

prisoners were directly challenging the legality of their continued detention, 

3 
which was not grounded merely on an administrative calculation, was in the 

nature of habeas corpus ). 

774 A.2d at 1260. (emphasis added). 

J 

Petitioner's release date, as calculated by the PBPP, December 23, 2018, has not 

expired. He is challenging the PPBP's administrative calculation. Under these circumstances 

the writ of habeas corpus is unavailable and jurisdiction does not lie in the Court of Common 

Pleas. Commonwealth Department of Corrections v. Reese, supra. (writ of habeas corpus is 

not available to challenge Board's recalculation of maximum release date where recalculated 

date has not expired; petitioner Reese's petition for writ of habeas corpus was within the 

jurisdiction of the trial court where petition challenged continued detention beyond 

recalculated date). See also Brown v. Dep't of Corrections, 144 Pa.Cmwlth. 610, 614, 601 

A.2d 1345, 1347 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). Petitioner was obligated to seek administrative review 

and pursue his claims further through the appeals process in the Commonwealth Court., 

= 

BY THE COURT: 

i'Mi c: -> �=l��; (

ri

/) 

, T\ 

-:;_:- ·- --:.· '·. -0 

:":£ -- - f�

i. .... ·n N 

- r-· > 

u· 

-· - ,- C) 

'1 (') 1: �

fT1 ) '·- )::;,,, 

-- 

.. .. :Ir. 

- .! 

·-· • 

(3) (:) 

u, 

N 

J. 

4