IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Luqman Garvin, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 465 C.D. 2017

: Submitted: February 16, 2018

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and :

Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: March 13, 2018

Luqman Garvin (Garvin) petitions pro se for review of the decision of 

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

administrative relief from the Board’s order recommitting him as a convicted 

parole violator (CPV) to serve 18 months backtime and recalculating his maximum 

release date from September 21, 2015, to November 14, 2017. We affirm.

Garvin is an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional 

Institution (SCI) at Waymart. Following Garvin’s plea of guilty to possession with 

intent to deliver a controlled substance, he was sentenced to 18 to 48 months 

incarceration with a minimum release date of November 5, 2012, and a maximum 
2

release date of September 21, 2015. By decision dated December 16, 2013, the 

Board granted Garvin parole on his original sentence, noting that his maximum

release date remained September 21, 2015. Garvin was released from the SCI to 

an approved home plan in Philadelphia on February 3, 2014.

In August 2014, Garvin was arrested by the Philadelphia Police and 

charged with burglary, criminal trespass, defiant trespass and criminal mischief 

after allegedly breaking into an abandoned residence. On August 26, 2014, the 

Board lodged its detainer against him. Bail was set at $5,000, which Garvin was 

unable to post. Garvin waived his right to a detention hearing and to counsel, and 

the Board voted to detain him pending resolution of the new criminal charges. On 

November 5, 2014, after being incarcerated for 71 days, Garvin was acquitted of 

the new criminal charges and released back onto parole.

On June 19, 2015, while still on parole, Garvin was again arrested by 

the Philadelphia Police for new criminal charges of possession with intent to 

deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance and 

conspiracy. The Board lodged a detainer against him on June 24, 2015. Bail was 

initially set at $50,000 and then lowered to $35,000, which Garvin was unable to 

post. Garvin again waived his right to a detention hearing and to counsel, and the 

Board voted to detain him pending disposition of the new drug charges.

On December 4, 2015, Garvin was convicted of the new charges and 

sentencing was set for a later date. Subsequently, the Board lodged a new detainer 

and noted on the warrant:
3

Although offender’s maximum sentence was 9/21/2015, 

the maximum sentence is being extended due to a new 

conviction. The new maximum sentence will be 

computed upon recording of the Board’s final action.

(Certified Record at 66.) Garvin waived his right to a revocation hearing and to 

counsel, and admitted that he violated his parole by committing these new drug 

charges on June 19, 2015. The Board recommitted Garvin as a CPV to serve 18 

months backtime when available subsequent to his sentencing.

On June 9, 2016, Garvin was sentenced to one to two years 

incarceration on the new drug charges, to be followed by two years probation. The 

Board subsequently recalculated Garvin’s maximum release date from September 

21, 2015, to November 14, 2017.

Garvin filed a pro se petition for administrative review challenging 

the Board’s authority to change his maximum release date and how the date was 

recalculated. The Board affirmed the recalculation of his maximum date as 

November 14, 2017, and Garvin then filed this petition for review.1

 

1 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board’s decision is supported 

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

have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Moroz v. 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 660 A.2d 131, 132 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
4

The only issue Garvin raises in his petition is that the Board lacked 

jurisdiction to detain him and recalculate his maximum date once his original 

maximum date had expired.2

While the Board detained him and recommitted him after the 

expiration of his original maximum date on September 21, 2015, Section 6138(a) 

of the Prisons and Parole Code specifically enables the Board, in its discretion, to 

recommit as a parole violator a parolee “released from a correctional facility who, 

during the period of parole . . . commits a crime punishable by imprisonment, for 

which the parolee is convicted or found guilty by a judge or jury or to which the 

parolee pleads guilty . . . at any time thereafter in a court of record.” 61 Pa. C.S. § 

6138(a)(1). (Emphasis added). As our Supreme Court has noted, “[t]here is no 

doubt that the Board can recommit and recompute the sentence of a parolee who 

commits a crime while on parole but is not convicted until after his original 

sentence had expired.” Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 

409 A.2d 843, 848 (Pa. 1979); see also Holland v. Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole, 640 A.2d 1386 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). Here, Garvin was 

arrested on new drug charges on June 19, 2015, prior to the expiration of his 

original maximum date of September 21, 2015, giving the Board jurisdiction to 

recommit him and recalculate his sentence.

 

2 Notably, Garvin failed to raise this or any other issue before the Board as he waived his 

right to a revocation hearing.
5

Moreover, we discern no error in the Board’s recalculation. When 

Garvin was initially paroled on February 3, 2014, his maximum release date was 

September 21, 2015, meaning he still owed 595 days toward his original sentence. 

In recalculating his maximum date, the Board gave Garvin credit for the 71 days he 

was incarcerated on the Board warrant (from August 26, 2014, to November 5, 

2014), and credited him one day of backtime (June 24, 2015, to June 25, 2015). 

Garvin was not given credit for time spent at liberty on parole because he was a 

convicted parole violator. See 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(2).3 Adding 523 days (595 

 

3 Section 6138(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a) Convicted violators.--

* * *

(2) If the parolee’s recommitment is so ordered, the parolee 

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, except as provided under paragraph (2.1), shall 

be given no credit for the time at liberty on parole.

(2.1) The board may, in its discretion, award credit to a 

parolee recommitted under paragraph (2) for the time spent at 

liberty on parole, unless any of the following apply:

(i) The crime committed during the period of parole 

or while delinquent on parole is a crime of violence as defined in 

42 Pa. C.S. § 9714(g) (relating to sentences for second and 

subsequent offenses) or a crime requiring registration under 42 Pa.

C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H (relating to registration of sexual offenders).

(ii) The parolee was recommitted under section 

6143 (relating to early parole of inmates subject to Federal removal 

order).

61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a).
6

days remaining – 71 days confinement – one day backtime = 523 days remaining) 

to June 9, 2016, the date Garvin was sentenced on his new drug offenses and 

became eligible to serve backtime, results in a new parole violation maximum date 

of November 14, 2017.

Accordingly, the determination of the Board is affirmed.

_______________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Luqman Garvin, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 465 C.D. 2017

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and :

Parole, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2018, the determination of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in the above-captioned matter is 

affirmed.

_______________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge