Court Opinion

ID: 9959256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 14:09:10.277488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:42.906759
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jose Sanchez,                                   :
                               Petitioner       :
                                                :
        v.                                      : No. 156 M.D. 2023
                                                : Submitted: March 8, 2024
Pennsylvania Board of                           :
Probation and Parole,                           :
                               Respondent       :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                             FILED: April 11, 2024

       The Pennsylvania Parole Board1 (Parole Board) has filed preliminary
objections (POs) to Jose Sanchez’s (Sanchez) pro se petition for review (Petition)
seeking mandamus relief.2 In his Petition, Sanchez challenges the Parole Board’s
detainer, which it lodged against him while he was in federal custody, and requests
this Court compel the Parole Board to strike the detainer against him. Concluding

1
 In 2020, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole was renamed the Pennsylvania Parole
Board. See Sections 15, 16, and 16.1 of the Act of December 18, 2019, P.L. 776, No. 115 (effective
February 18, 2020); see also Sections 6101 and 6111(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code, as
amended, 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101, 6111(a).

2
 Sanchez’s pleading is captioned “Complaint,” which we treat as a petition for review in this
Court’s original jurisdiction. See Order, 4/14/2023.
that Sanchez’s Petition fails to establish a clear legal right to relief, we sustain the
Parole Board’s PO in the nature of a demurrer and dismiss Sanchez’s Petition with
prejudice.
                                     BACKGROUND3
       Sanchez is currently an inmate in Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) custody
at the Federal Correctional Institution at Loretto.4 The facts as alleged in Sanchez’s
Petition are as follows. The Parole Board paroled Sanchez on July 18, 2016. In
2018, by federal indictment, the United States Attorney’s Office charged Sanchez
with drug-related crimes. On July 19, 2018, the Parole Board lodged a detainer
against Sanchez. Subsequently, on August 14, 2018, the Parole Board removed the
detainer. On September 4, 2019, Sanchez entered a guilty plea to his federal charges.
       After pleading guilty to his federal charges, Sanchez waived his revocation
hearing before the Parole Board, and by decision recorded on January 13, 2020, the
Parole Board recommitted Sanchez to a state correctional institution (SCI) as a
convicted parole violator (CPV) and ordered him “to serve 24 months [sic] backtime,
when available, pending sentencing on [his] outstanding federal conviction and [his]
return to a [SCI].” Sanchez’s Br., App. 5. On August 22, 2022, the Parole Board
issued a warrant, lodging a detainer against Sanchez for his parole violation.
Sanchez’s Br., App. 2. In October 2022, Sanchez requested to participate in the
BOP’s residential drug abuse treatment program.                   BOP denied his request
determining that he was ineligible for the program due to the Parole Board’s

3
  The facts are as alleged in Sanchez’s Petition and attached exhibits. Additionally, we consider
information contained in the public dockets as this Court may take judicial notice of information
contained in public dockets. Moss v. SCI – Mahanoy Superintendent Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole,
194 A.3d 1130, 1137 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

4
 See Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited
April 9, 2024) (Sanchez’s assigned BOP Register Number is 76392-067).

                                               2
detainer. Sanchez’s Br., App. 7. In November 2022, December 2022, and January
2023, Sanchez sent correspondence to the Parole Board regarding the detainer. By
letter mailed February 21, 2023, the Parole Board responded to Sanchez indicating
Sanchez failed to file his request for relief from its January 13, 2020 decision to
recommit him as a CPV within 30 days. Therefore, it dismissed his request as
untimely.
         Sanchez filed his Petition with this Court. In his Petition, Sanchez seeks
“remedy in the matter of a violation of due process, specifically the ‘order of service’
by the [Parole Board.]” Petition at 1. Sanchez asserts the Parole Board “violat[ed]
his [c]onstitutional rights, by depriving him of his liberty without penalogical cause,
and by denying him access to effective rehabilitative programs and serving to
obstruct his facilitated reentry back into society, ultimately resulting in [Sanchez]
being forced to serve more time than necessary.” Id. In summary, Sanchez asserts
the Parole Board’s detainer is unlawful because the Parole Board failed to comply
with Section 6138(a)(5.1) of the Prisons and Parole Code,5 which requires a parolee
serve an original sentence before serving a new federal sentence. See id. at 9.
Sanchez asks this Court to compel the Parole Board to strike the detainer against
him. Id.
         In response, the Parole Board filed POs in the nature of a demurrer under
Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4) asserting (1) Sanchez’s correspondence to the Parole Board
was an untimely appeal of its January 13, 2020 decision that recommitted him as a
CPV when available, and (2) the Parole Board complied with Section 6138(a)(5) of
the Prisons and Parole Code by properly issuing its detainer so that upon his release

5
    61 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-7301.

                                           3
from federal custody, Sanchez can be returned to Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections’ (DOC) custody. Parole Bd.’s POs generally.
                                    DISCUSSION
      In ruling on preliminary objections, this Court is limited in its review to the
Petition and any attached documents or exhibits. Freemore v. Dep’t of Corr., 231
A.3d 33, 37 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (quoting Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2010)). In considering a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer,
we “consider as true all well-pled material facts set forth in the [P]etition and all
reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.” Richardson v. Beard,
942 A.2d 911, 913 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). We do “not accept as true conclusions of
law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of
opinion.” Id. Where it is “clear and free from doubt” that facts pleaded are legally
insufficient to establish a right to relief, we will sustain a preliminary objection. Id.
      Sanchez seeks mandamus relief in the form of an order compelling the Parole
Board to “strike” its detainer. See Petition at 9. Mandamus is an extraordinary
remedy which compels the official performance of a ministerial act or a mandatory
duty. Byrd v. Pa. Bd. of Prob./Parole, 826 A.2d 65, 66-67 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)
(citation omitted). We will only issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioner can
show (1) a clear legal right to relief, (2) a corresponding duty on the respondent to
act, and (3) lack of an alternative legal remedy. Toland v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole,
263 A.3d 1220, 1232 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). It is not the purpose of mandamus to
establish legal rights, but rather, to enforce rights that are already established. Clark
v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155, 159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). When a petitioner seeks a writ of
mandamus, “his threshold burden is to establish a clear legal right to relief.” Garber
v. Dep’t of Corr., 851 A.2d 222, 225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

                                           4
      We begin by addressing Sanchez’s assertion that the Parole Board failed to
comply with Section 6138(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code because it issued a
detainer for his return to DOC custody after he completes his federal sentence.
Section 6138(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code provides, in relevant part:

      (1) The board may, at its discretion, revoke the parole of a paroled
      offender if the offender, during the period of parole or while delinquent
      on parole, commits a crime punishable by imprisonment, for which the
      offender is convicted or . . . to which the offender pleads guilty . . . at
      any time thereafter in a court of record.

      ....

      (5.1) If the offender is sentenced to serve a new term of total
      confinement by a Federal court . . . because of a verdict or plea under
      paragraph (1), the offender shall serve the balance of the original term
      before serving the new term.

61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(1), (5.1). While Sanchez is correct that Section 6138(a)(5.1)
requires a parolee who receives a federal sentence to serve the balance of his original
term before serving his new term, the Parole Board’s regulations provide further
guidance specifically addressing the circumstances set forth in this case. Under the
Parole Board’s regulations, if a parolee is “confined outside the jurisdiction of the
[DOC], such as confinement . . . in a Federal correctional institution . . . the
revocation hearing shall be held within 120 days of the official verification of the
return of the parolee to a State correctional facility.” 37 Pa. Code § 71.4. Further,
if a parolee is in federal custody, the Parole Board “may lodge its detainer but other
matters may be deferred until the parolee has been returned to a State correctional
facility in this Commonwealth.” 37 Pa. Code § 71.5.
      In Brown v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 184 A.3d 1021 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2017), this Court addressed a similar issue to that presented here. In Brown,

                                          5
while the parolee was on state parole, federal authorities charged the parolee with
drug-related crimes. Id. at 1022. The parolee remained in federal custody from the
time of his arrest until he was released after serving his sentence. Id. at 1023. Upon
his release, the parolee returned to DOC custody. Id. The Parole Board initiated
revocation proceedings, after which it recommitted the parolee as a CPV and ordered
him to serve backtime. Id. The Parole Board denied the parolee’s appeal, and he
petitioned this Court for review, arguing the Parole Board’s revocation hearing was
untimely, and he should have served the backtime on his original sentence before
serving his new federal sentence as required by Section 6138(a)(5) of the Prisons
and Parole Code. Id. at 1024. This Court acknowledged Section 6138(a)(5)’s
requirements, but rejected the parolee’s argument, noting there was no dispute in the
case that the parolee “was in federal custody both before and after his federal
sentencing and when the [Parole] Board received official verification of his
conviction.” Id. at 1027. This Court explained:

      [The parolee’s] argument presumes that the [Parole] Board had the
      ability to obtain him from federal custody in order to hold a revocation
      hearing and recommit him as a CPV to serve the remainder of his
      original sentence in accordance with Section 6138(a)(5.1). However,
      the [Parole] Board asserts that it does not have the ability to acquire a
      Pennsylvania parolee from the custody of another jurisdiction in order
      to recommit the parolee to serve the remainder of the original sentence.
      [The parolee] has not provided any legal authority that grants the
      [Parole] Board this authority.

Id. (emphasis in original omitted). We concluded, therefore, that the parolee was
unavailable to the Parole Board at the time he pled guilty and was sentenced on the
federal charges, and he was unavailable when the Parole Board received official
verification of his conviction. Id. The Parole Board did not acquire jurisdiction over

                                          6
the parolee until after his release from federal custody. Id. Finding no error, we
affirmed the Parole Board’s order. Id. at 1028.
       Similarly, in Williams v. Pennsylvania Parole Board (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 152
C.D. 2021, filed December 14, 2021),6 the parolee was in federal custody before and
after his federal sentencing, and when the Parole Board received verification of the
new conviction. Relying on Brown, 184 A.3d at 1026, this Court held that where a
parolee is in federal custody, confined in a federal facility, or is otherwise
unavailable, the Parole Board may defer a revocation hearing until the parolee is
returned to an SCI, and is thus subject to the Parole Board’s jurisdiction. Williams,
slip op. at 11-12.
       While Sanchez correctly asserts Section 6138(a)(5.1) of the Prisons and
Parole Code prescribes the order in which a parolee must serve his sentences, here,
Sanchez was not available to serve backtime on his original state sentence before he
served his new federal sentence. Sanchez has remained in federal custody since he
pled guilty and received his federal sentence. As we have expressed in prior cases,
this Court is not aware of any legal authority allowing the Parole Board to retrieve
Sanchez from federal custody to have him serve his state sentence before he serves
his federal sentence. As such, Sanchez is unavailable to the Parole Board. The
Parole Board’s regulations clearly set forth that when a parolee is in federal custody,
confined in a federal facility, or is otherwise unavailable, the Board’s duty to hold a
revocation hearing, or take other action beyond issuing a detainer, is deferred until
the parolee is returned to a SCI. Brown, 184 A.3d at 1025. The Parole Board has

6
   An unreported memorandum opinion of this Court filed after January 15, 2008, may be cited for
its persuasive value under Rule 126(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), and Section 414(a) of the Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code
§ 69.414(a).

                                               7
issued its detainer, consistent with its requirements under the regulations, so that
Sanchez will return to DOC custody after he is released from federal custody.
Accordingly, Sanchez’s argument that the Board has not complied with Section
6138(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code because the Parole Board should have
obtained him from federal custody to first serve the backtime on his Original
Sentence has no merit. Because Sanchez is not entitled to the relief he seeks,
mandamus is not available to compel the Parole Board to strike its detainer.
                                     CONCLUSION
       Sanchez’s Petition fails to plead facts sufficient to establish he has any right
to relief. Sanchez’s Petition likewise fails to establish that the Parole Board has any
authority to act where Sanchez has been in federal custody since his conviction.
Rather, the Parole Board exercised its authority in compliance with its regulations
when it issued a detainer to ensure Sanchez’s return to DOC custody after he serves
his federal sentence. Accordingly, the Parole Board’s preliminary objection in the
nature of a demurrer is sustained,7 and Sanchez’s Petition is dismissed with
prejudice.

                                                  ______________________________
                                                  STACY WALLACE, Judge

7
  Because we are granting the Parole Board’s preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer
and dismissing Sanchez’s Petition, it is unnecessary to address the Parole Board’s preliminary
objection regarding the untimely appeal of its January 13, 2020 order. See generally Holden v.
Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 266 A.3d 1215 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (citation omitted).

                                              8
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jose Sanchez,                            :
                          Petitioner     :
                                         :
       v.                                : No. 156 M.D. 2023
                                         :
Pennsylvania Board of                    :
Probation and Parole,                    :
                          Respondent     :

                                    ORDER

      AND NOW, this 11th day of April 2024, upon consideration of the
preliminary objections filed by the Pennsylvania Parole Board to the pro se petition
for review filed by Jose Sanchez, the preliminary objection in the nature of a
demurrer is SUSTAINED and the petition for review is DISMISSED with
prejudice.

                                         ______________________________
                                         STACY WALLACE, Judge