IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ronald J. Kent, :

: No. 362 C.D. 2016

Petitioner : Submitted: October 14, 2016

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: February 13, 2017

Ronald J. Kent petitions for review of the decision of the 

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

administrative relief after the Board revoked his parole and recommitted him to 

serve the remainder of his unexpired term of imprisonment as a convicted parole 

violator. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Luzerne County Common Pleas Court (trial court) initially 

sentenced Kent to a 7- to 15-year term of imprisonment for a violation of his 

probation imposed on robbery convictions. Kent’s initial controlling minimum 

sentence date was December 23, 2004, and his controlling maximum sentence date 

was December 23, 2012. In August 2005, Kent was released on parole.
2

In June 2007, the Board revoked Kent’s parole and recommitted him 

to serve 18 months backtime as a convicted parole violator based on his conviction 

for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. In December 

2008, Kent was constructively paroled to the detainer sentence for his drug 

conviction. The maximum date on his detainer sentence was November 21, 2013, 

and the maximum date on his original sentence was July 23, 2014.

In January 2010, Kent was released on parole from his detainer 

sentence to the Minsec Hazleton Treatment Center (Center). In August 2010, the 

Board declared Kent delinquent.

In April 2011, Kent was arrested by the Wilmington, Delaware Police 

for a number of drug and related charges. In May 2011, Kent was sentenced by a 

Delaware court to a suspended 5-year term of imprisonment for his convictions for 

possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance and forgery and Kent 

was transferred to the State Correctional Institution – Graterford.

In August 2011, the Board again revoked Kent’s parole and 

recommitted him as a technical and convicted parole violator to serve 15 months 

backtime based on his convictions and the violations of his parole conditions. The 

Board recalculated Kent’s parole violation maximum date to be August 2, 2017. In 

an administrative appeal, the Board directed that an evidentiary hearing should be 

held to determine if Kent was entitled to credit against his sentence for the period 

of time he was at the Center.

However, in April 2015, the Department of Corrections restructured 

Kent’s original sentence

1

based on a trial court order changing the commitment 

 

1

The Department’s April 2015 DC16E Sentence Status Summary states, in pertinent 

part:

(Footnote continued on next page...)
3

credit on that sentence. As a result, in May 2015, the Board issued a decision 

noting the restructuring of Kent’s original sentence; modifying its prior decisions; 

and changing his maximum date to December 29, 2016.

In May 2015, Kent sought administrative relief with the Board 

challenging the calculation of his maximum date and seeking credit against his 

original sentence for the time that he spent at the Center and in custody in 

Delaware prior to sentencing. In September 2015, a hearing was conducted on the 

issue of credit for time spent at the Center and, in October 2015, the Board denied 

Kent’s credit request. In February 2016, the Board denied Kent’s request for 

administrative relief regarding credit for his time at the Center and the calculation 

of his maximum date. Kent filed the instant petition for review,2arguing that the 

Board erred in denying credit for the 202 days that he spent at the Center; the 27 

 

(continued...)

Version 9 was created because commitment credit has been 

adjusted per order dated 2-12-15 by [the trial court] which clarified 

credit time.

This credit adjustment changed subject’s original max date.

* * * PBPP MUST ADJUST THE PV MAX DATE TO ALLOW 

FOR THIS CREDIT * * *

Certified Record (C.R.) at 1.

2 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are 

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

constitutional rights were violated. McNally v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 

940 A.2d 1289, 1292 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
4

days that he spent awaiting sentencing in Delaware; and that he should be released 

from prison.

3

However, we will not address the merits of Kent’s claims on appeal. 

This Court has explained that “the expiration of a parolee’s maximum term renders 

an appeal of a Board revocation order moot.” Taylor v. Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole, 746 A.2d 671, 674 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). We will dismiss an 

appeal when the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for this Court to grant 

the requested relief. Id. We will refuse dismissal only if the issues involved are 

capable of repetition yet likely to evade review and are of important public interest, 

or where a party will suffer some detriment without this Court’s decision. Id.; 

Sands v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 396 A.2d 914, 915 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1979).

Because the maximum date of December 29, 2016, on Kent’s original 

sentence has passed and he is no longer serving that sentence, the instant appeal is 

moot. Although the credit issues that Kent raises in this appeal are likely capable 

of repetition, they will not evade review and have been addressed in a number of 

other appeals from Board decisions denying administrative relief. Kent will not 

suffer any detriment without this Court’s decision because he is no longer serving 

his original sentence and we cannot grant the requested relief.4

 

3 We granted appointed counsel leave to withdraw and allowed Kent to proceed pro se in 

this appeal.

4 As noted above, Kent was on constructive parole from his original sentence to his 

detainer sentence at the time that he was paroled from the detainer sentence to the Center. As a 

result, any credit for any purported confinement that he served at the Center would apply to his 

detainer sentence and not to his original sentence. See, e.g., Wile, Pennsylvania Law of 

Probation and Parole, §3:8 at 89 (3rd ed. 2010) (“Constructive parole is considered ‘time at 

liberty’ on parole for purposes of section 6138(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code, [61 Pa. C.S. 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
5

Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed as moot.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

 

(continued...)

§6138(a),] or ‘street time,’ for purposes of determining to what credit an offender is due against a 

maximum sentence upon recommitment as a parole violator. Periods of constructive parole are 

forfeited upon an offender’s recommitment by the [Board] as a convicted parole violator . . . .”) 

(footnotes omitted).

Moreover, Kent’s claims for credit are without merit. Regarding the conditions of 

confinement at the Center, the Board found that: it was not a secure facility; the Center did not 

detain Kent or refuse his right to depart the facility under his own power; the Center’s residents 

were not locked in their rooms and there was a release mechanism on each door; the residents 

were permitted to leave for approved periods without escort or restraint; and Kent testified that 

he obtained employment while housed at the center and routinely signed out to go to work for 

extended periods of time. C.R. at 137. These findings are supported by the testimony of Kent 

and that of his parole agent. Id. at 110, 111, 115, 116, 119, 120, 122, 123. The findings also 

support the Board’s determination that the conditions at the Center were not so restrictive as to 

constitute the equivalent of incarceration thereby warranting credit on his original sentence. 

Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 120 A.3d 1116, 1119-1121 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2015). Finally, Kent is not entitled to credit for the time awaiting sentencing on his 

conviction in Delaware because he does not allege and did not demonstrate that he was solely 

held by the Board’s detainer at that time or that he did not receive credit for that time on his new 

sentence. Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. 1980).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ronald J. Kent, :

: No. 362 C.D. 2016

Petitioner : 

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of :

Probation and Parole, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2017, the above-captioned 

appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge