IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tyree J. Sadar, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 145 M.D. 2021

: SUBMITTED: January 21, 2022

Department of Corrections, John E. Wetzel, :

Secretary, Derek F. Oberlander, :

Superintendent-SCI Forest, Ian Gustafson, :

CCPM, SCI-Forest, Randall L. Britton, :

Record’s Supervisor; Corinne A. Melego, :

Sheryl A. Lewis, Melissa L. Myers, :

Records Staff, :

Respondents :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: April 13, 2022

Before us for disposition in our original jurisdiction is Respondents’

preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to the pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus filed by Petitioner, Tyree J. Sadar, currently incarcerated at State 

Correctional Institution (SCI) Forest. (Respondents are the Department of 

Corrections; John E. Wetzel, Secretary; Derek F. Oberlander, Superintendent-SCI 

Forest; Ian Gustafson, CCPM, SCI-Forest; Randall L. Britton, Records Supervisor; 

and Records Staff Corinne A. Melego, Sheryl A. Lewis, and Melissa L. Myers.) In 

the petition, Petitioner challenges Respondents’ calculation of his prison sentences. 

We sustain the preliminary objection and dismiss Petitioner’s petition.
2

Petitioner avers that he entered guilty pleas and received concurrent 

sentences of one to two years at dockets CP2429 (simple assault), CP728 (criminal 

trespass and criminal mischief-damage property), CP792 (terroristic threats), and 

CP1711 (simple assault). July 28, 2020 Sentence Status Summary, Petition, Ex. A 

at 1. In addition, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of nine to twenty-four 

months at CP583 (robbery).1 Id. Before starting those sentences, Petitioner was 

required to serve backtime from a prior docket. His credit toward backtime was 

from January 26, 2017, to February 1, 2017. On July 14, 2020, he completed his 

backtime and began serving sentences at the aforementioned dockets the next day.

Petitioner avers that he is entitled to credit at all of the aforementioned 

dockets from February 2, 2017, to October 2, 2017, which would result in a 

maximum sentence date of November 15, 2021. However, his maximum sentence 

date was calculated as July 7, 2022, because of the bail designation at docket 

CP1711. Consequently, he only received time credit for docket CP1711 from 

February 2, 2017, to February 9, 2017. Petitioner argues that he could not have been

released on bail at docket CP1711 without being released on the other dockets. He 

maintains that he “had a [Pennsylvania Parole Board] detainer lodged against him 

upon being placed in the custody of the Allegheny County Jail; which would not 

have allowed him to be released on bail because he would have been released to the 

Board’s custody, thus gaining time credit towards his backtime.” Petitioner’s Br. at 

5. Accordingly, he requests that this Court enter an order compelling the Department 

1 All of the dockets at issue are from common pleas courts. CP2429 and CP1711 reference

dockets from Allegheny County: CP-02-CR-0002429-2017 and CP-02-CR-0001711-2017. 

CP728 and CP792 reference dockets from Washington County: CP-63-CR-0000728-2017 and CP63-CR-0000792-2017. CP583 references a docket from Fayette County: CP-26-CR-0000583-

2017.
3

to calculate his sentence at CP1711 to reflect a minimum sentence date of November 

15, 2020, and a maximum date of November 15, 2021.

In the June 2021 preliminary objection, Respondents averred that 

Petitioner failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. “Preliminary 

objections in the nature of a demurrer are deemed to admit all well-pleaded material 

facts and any inferences reasonably deduced therefrom, but not the [petition for

review’s] legal conclusions and averments.” Danysh v. Dep’t of Corr., 845 A.2d 

260, 262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), aff’d, 881 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2005). “[O]ur role is to 

determine whether the facts pled are legally sufficient to permit the action to 

continue.” Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Joyce, 563 A.2d 590, 591 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). 

To sustain such an objection, “it must appear with certainty upon the facts pled that 

the law will not permit recovery.” Id. Where there is doubt, it should be resolved 

by a refusal to sustain the demurrer. Id.

As for mandamus, the purpose is to enforce legal rights already 

established beyond all doubt. Africa v. Horn, 701 A.2d 273, 275 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1997). Mandamus is the proper remedy only where the petitioner demonstrates that 

he has a clear legal right to the performance of a purely ministerial non-discretionary 

act, the respondent has a corresponding mandatory duty to perform the act, and there 

is no other appropriate or adequate remedy. Nieves v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 

995 A.2d 412 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). This Court may compel the Department to 

compute a petitioner’s sentence properly. Saunders v. Dep’t of Corr., 749 A.2d 553 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). However, the appropriate remedy for an inmate asserting that 

he did not receive the benefit of the bargain with respect to any plea agreement in 

place at sentencing is to appeal directly to the trial court. Hoyt v. Dep’t of Corr., 79 

A.3d 741, 743 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
4

As an initial matter, both parties agree that Respondents subsequently 

discovered an error in the sentencing calculation for docket CP1711 and recomputed 

the commitment credit to reflect additional credit for the period of June 28, 2017 

(sentence date-CP1711) to October 2, 2017 (day before custody for return). 

Petitioner’s Br. at 10; Respondents’ Br. at 7. Notwithstanding that credit adjustment, 

Petitioner continues to assert that he is entitled to time credit from February 2, 2017 

(day after backtime credit ends), to October 2, 2017. At a minimum, he asserts that 

he is entitled to credit from May 3, 2017 (sentence date-CP583), to October 2, 2017. 

Petitioner’s Br. at 10. In support of the latter assertion, he contends that all of the 

dockets were linked to make an aggregate sentence of one to two years such that the 

effective date of the sentences was the date upon which they were imposed and, 

therefore, the correct date for starting time credit. See June 28, 2017 Sentencing 

Orders for CP1711 and CP2429, Petitioner’s Br., Exs. A and B (linking sentences 

and ordering concurrent confinement).

As Respondents assert, the docket entries for CP1711 reflect that the 

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County set monetary bail at $10,000 on 

February 6, 2017, and then amended the bail type to ROR (released on his own 

recognizance) on February 9, 2017.2 Unified Judicial System Criminal Docket 

Entries, CP-02-CR-0001711-2017 at 2. As of February 9, therefore, Petitioner was 

no longer incarcerated on docket CP1711 and could not accumulate additional time 

credit prior to the date of sentencing.3 Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 367 

2 We may take judicial notice of information contained in publicly available dockets. Moss v. 

SCI-Mahanoy Superintendent Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 194 A.3d 1130, 1137 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2018).

3 Section 9760(1) of the Judicial Code provides:

(Footnote continued on next page...)
5

(Pa. Super. 2013) (defendant must be given credit for any days spent in custody 

before imposition of his sentence but only if such commitment is attributable to the 

offense for which the sentence was imposed).

As for Petitioner’s aggregate sentence argument, Respondents properly

entered the effective dates of the sentences to start upon completion of the backtime 

sentence from a prior docket. It was only after completing that backtime sentence 

on July 14, 2020, that Petitioner was eligible to begin serving the remainder of his 

sentences. Section 6138(a)(5) of the Prisons and Parole Code provides that service 

of the balance of the term originally imposed shall precede commencement of the 

new term imposed. 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5). Consequently, Respondents do not 

have a duty to apply credit at docket CP1711 for the period of February 9, 2017 

(ROR date), to June 28, 2017 (sentence date-CP1711).

Accordingly, with the understanding that Respondents already made a 

credit adjustment for docket CP1711 to reflect additional credit for the period of 

June 28, 2017, to October 2, 2017,4 we sustain their preliminary objection and 

dismiss Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus.

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

President Judge Emerita

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 change for which a prison sentence is imposed or as a result 

of the conduct on which such a change 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.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1).

4 Sept. 1, 2021 Sentence Status Summary, Respondents’ Brief, Ex. A at 2.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tyree J. Sadar, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 145 M.D. 2021

: 

Department of Corrections, John E. Wetzel, :

Secretary, Derek F. Oberlander, :

Superintendent-SCI Forest, Ian Gustafson, :

CCPM, SCI-Forest, Randall L. Britton, :

Record’s Supervisor; Corinne A. Melego, :

Sheryl A. Lewis, Melissa L. Myers, :

Records Staff, :

Respondents :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2022, Respondents’ preliminary 

objection in the nature of a demurrer to Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus is 

hereby SUSTAINED, and Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus is 

DISMISSED.

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

President Judge Emerita