IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert A. Midgley, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 59 C.D. 2021

:

Pennsylvania Parole Board, :

Respondent : Submitted: December 2, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE CEISLER FILED: April 3, 2023

Petitioner Robert A. Midgley (Midgley) petitions for review of Respondent 

Pennsylvania Parole Board’s (Board) December 30, 2020 order, through which the 

Board affirmed its March 15, 2019 decision to recommit him to serve a total of 12 

months of backtime, recalculate the maximum date on his carceral sentence, and 

award him no credit for time served at liberty on parole. We dismiss Midgley’s 

Petition for Review as moot.

I. Background

This marks the second time we have been called upon to address Midgley’s 

Petition for Review, but the first time we have directly engaged with the substantive 

merits of Midgley’s challenges to the Board’s order. As we recounted previously in 

Midgley v. Pennsylvania Parole Board (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 59 C.D. 2021, filed April

1, 2022) (Midgley I):

On August 5, 2015, after pleading guilty to one count of 

driving under the influence, Midgley was sentenced in the 

Court of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District, 
2

Franklin County Branch (Trial Court) to a term of one to 

five years in state prison. Certified Record (C.R.) at 1. The 

Board then paroled Midgley on August 8, 2016, at which 

point the maximum date on his August 2015 sentence was 

August 5, 2020, reflecting that Midgley had 1,458 

unserved days left on that sentence. Id. at 4-7. Thereafter, 

on February 15, 2018, Midgley tested positive for THC 

during a routine parole supervision drug screening 

procedure, prompting the Board to issue a detainer and 

take him into custody that same day. Id. at 11-12, 22.2

Midgley was subsequently charged with indecent 

exposure on February 22, 2018, which stemmed from an 

incident in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, on February 13, 

2018, during which he was discovered while masturbating 

in public at a local library. Id. at 19-20, 24-27. On March 

28, 2018, Midgley pled guilty to the indecent exposure 

charge and was sentenced by the Trial Court to 6 to 12 

months in state prison. Id. at 66, 75-79.

2 THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, “is the substance [that is] 

primarily responsible for the effects of marijuana on a 

person’s mental state.” Cannabis (Marijuana) and 

Cannabinoids: What You Need To Know, NATIONAL 

CENTER FOR COMPLEMENTARY AND 

INTEGRATIVE HEALTH (November 2019), https://

www.nccih.nih.gov/health/cannabis-marijuana-andcannabinoids-what-you-need-to-know (last visited [March

31, 2023]). Tetrahydrocannabinol is a Schedule I controlled 

substance under Pennsylvania law. See 28 Pa. Code § 

25.72(b)(3)(xvi).

The Board then issued a series of decisions that addressed 

both Midgley’s positive drug test and his criminal 

conviction. On May 16, 2018, the Board recommitted 

Midgley as a technical parole violator (TPV) on account 

of his positive drug test and ordered that he serve six 

months of backtime, with an automatic reparole date of 

August 15, 2018. Id. at 38-40. On July 2, 2018, the Board 

modified its May 16, 2018 decision by deleting the 

automatic reparole provision and recommitting Midgley to 

serve 12 months of backtime as a convicted parole violator

[(CPV)], due to his guilty plea, to be served concurrently 

with the previously imposed 6 months of TPV backtime 

“when available pending parole from (or completion of) 
3

[his March 2018 sentence].” Id. at 70-71. Finally, on 

March 15, 2019, the Board reiterated its backtime 

recommitment determination, declined to award Midgley 

any credit for time served at liberty on parole, and 

recalculated the maximum date on his August 2015 

sentence as March 7, 2022.3Id. at 82-83. Confusingly, 

however, the Board’s Order to Recommit, dated March 14, 

2019, states that Midgley’s “prior parole liberty forfeited” 

was “0” days and, without explanation, awards him 18 

days of backtime credit for the time period between 

February 15, 2018, and March 5, 2018. Id. at 80-81.

3 The Board arrived at this recalculation by using March 28, 

2018, as the date of Midgley’s “custody for return” and then 

adding 1,440 days to that date. See C.R. at 80-81.

In response, Midgley challenged two of these decisions 

before the Board. First, in July 2018, Midgley 

administratively appealed the Board’s July 2, 2018 

decision, in which he argued that the Board’s parole “hit” 

exceeded the time remaining on his August 2015 sentence. 

Id. at 87-88. The Board denied this administrative appeal 

on March 27, 2019. Id. at 90. Subsequently, on April 8, 

2019, Midgley submitted a second administrative appeal, 

this one regarding the Board’s March 15, 2019 decision. 

Therein, he stated that he wished “to request leniency in 

the Board’s decision not to award credit . . . for the time 

served at liberty on parole due to the mental capacity of 

offender during commission of crime resulting in parole 

violation.” Id. at 91-92. The Board denied Midgley’s 

second administrative appeal on December 30, 2020. Id.

at 94-95.

Midgley then filed his pro se Petition for Review with our 

Court on January 12, 2021, regarding the Board’s 

December 30, 2020 order. In his Petition for Review, 

Midgley argued that the Board had unlawfully revoked 

credit for time served at liberty on parole that it had 

previously awarded him and had extended his August 15, 

2015 sentence in violation of the Pennsylvania 

Constitution’s and [the] United States Constitution’s 

prohibitions against double jeopardy and cruel and 

unusual punishment. Pet. for Rev. ¶¶10-11. On February 

26, 2021, we appointed the Northumberland County 

Office of the Public Defender to represent Midgley in this 
4

matter. Order, 2/26/21, at 1-2. [Sarah Beth StigerwaltEgan, Esquire,] entered her appearance on Midgley’s 

behalf on August 10, 2021, and then filed [an] Application 

to Withdraw and [an] Anders brief on October 13, 2021.

Midgley I, slip op. at 2-4, 2022 WL 984560, at *1-*2. Treating Stigerwalt-Egan’s 

Anders brief as a no-merit letter, we concluded that it was technically deficient and 

consequently denied her request to withdraw from this matter without prejudice. Id., 

slip op. at 6, 2022 WL 984560, at *3. In addition, we directed her to file either an 

amended Application to Withdraw and no-merit letter, or a brief in support of 

Midgley’s Petition for Review, within 30 days. Id., slip op. at 6-7, 2022 WL 984560, 

at *3. Finally, we directed Stigerwalt-Egan to address whether the passage of the 

maximum date on Midgley’s August 2015 sentence had rendered his appellate 

claims moot. Id., slip op. at 7 n.5, 2022 WL 984560, at *3 n.5.

On April 25, 2022, Michael Fiorillo, Esquire (Counsel), entered his 

appearance replacing Stigerwalt-Egan as Midgley’s attorney in this matter. That 

same day, Counsel filed a “Motion for Extension of Time,” through which he asked 

that we extend the deadline for compliance with Midgley I. On April 26, 2022, we 

granted Counsel’s Motion, thereby giving him until May 26, 2022, to respond to 

Midgley I. Order, 4/26/22, at 1. Counsel elected to file a substantive brief on May 

24, 2022, to which the Board responded on June 27, 2022, by filing a brief of its 

own. Accordingly, this matter is now ready for our disposition.

II. Discussion

Midgley raises what amounts to two arguments in his brief,1 which we 

summarize as follows. First, he argues that the Board abused its discretion by 

1

“Our scope of review over actions of the Board is limited to determining whether the 

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

(Footnote continued on next page...)
5

deciding not to award him credit for time served at liberty on parole without 

appropriately considering how his “mental capacity” had caused him to commit the 

crime of indecent exposure. Midgley’s Br. at 11. Second, he claims that the Board 

committed legal error by revoking credit for time served at liberty on parole when it 

recommitted him as a CPV, even though it had already awarded him that credit when 

it had previously declared him to be a TPV. Id.2

However, we are unable to reach the merits of these arguments, as they have 

been rendered moot by the passage of time. As this Court has held, “the expiration 

of a parolee’s maximum term renders an appeal of a Board revocation order moot. 

It is well settled that an appeal will be dismissed when the occurrence of an event 

renders it impossible for the court to grant the requested relief.” Taylor v. Pa. Bd. of 

Prob. & Parole, 746 A.2d 671, 674 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (citations omitted). We will 

refuse to dismiss a moot appeal “only if the issues involved are capable of repetition 

yet likely to evade review[,] of important public interest, or where a party will suffer 

some detriment without [our] court’s decision.” Id. Such a detriment exists where, 

though the maximum term on a parolee’s original sentence has passed, they are 

currently serving time on a new sentence and have raised issues on appeal that would 

potentially affect the maximum date on that new sentence. See Mesko v. Pa. Bd. of 

Prob. & Parole, 245 A.3d 1174, 1178 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021).

constitutional rights were violated.” Ramos v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 954 A.2d 107, 109 n.1 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

2 Midgley also notes at the end of his brief, in what amounts to an aside, that the 

constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is not relevant to parole revocation proceedings, 

as well as that the denial of credit for time served at liberty on parole does not impose cruel and 

unusual punishment upon a parole violator and is therefore constitutionally sound. Midgley’s Br. 

at 12.
6

In this instance, however, it is clear that the maximum dates on both of 

Midgley’s sentences have passed, with the maximum date on his August 2015 

sentence having been March 7, 2022, and the maximum date on his March 2018 

sentence having been February 14, 2023. See C.R. at 83; Board’s Br. at 8; Board’s 

Supplemental Br. at 1-2, Exs. A-B; Midgley’s Supplemental Br. at 3. Furthermore, 

it does not appear that Midgley is still incarcerated within our Commonwealth’s 

prison system. See Inmate Locator, PA. DEP’T OF CORR., 

http://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov (last visited Mar. 31, 2023). This matter is thus 

indisputably moot.

Midgley rejoins that we should nevertheless address the merits of his claims 

because, in his view, the issues he has presented are both capable of repetition and 

likely to escape judicial review, and are of great public importance. Midgley’s 

Supplemental Br. at 3-5. We disagree. First, his claims regarding the Board’s 

revocation of credit for time served at liberty on parole are far from unique and are 

of the workaday type aggrieved parolees raise, and that we address on the merits, 

with regularity. Second, “the great public importance exception to the mootness 

doctrine ‘is generally confined to a narrow category of cases.’” Harris v. Rendell, 

982 A.2d 1030, 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (quoting Bottomer v. Progressive Cas. Ins. 

Co., 859 A.2d 1282, 1285 (Pa. 2004)). The common nature of these claims, as well 

as the fact that an adjudication on the merits would neither give Midgley any relief 

nor break new ground in terms of case law, leads us to conclude that they are not of 

such public import as to satisfy that mootness exception either. Therefore, we decline 

to rule upon the merits of his appellate arguments.
7

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, we dismiss Midgley’s Petition for Review as moot.

____________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert A. Midgley, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 59 C.D. 2021

:

Pennsylvania Parole Board, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3

rd day of April, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner 

Robert A. Midgley’s Petition for Review is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

____________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge