Court Opinion

ID: 9960443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:11:08.307296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:28.486761
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Rashaad Ponder,                    :
                                   :
                        Petitioner :
                                   :
          v.                       : No. 1123 C.D. 2022
                                   : Submitted: May 26, 2023
Pennsylvania Parole Board,         :
                                   :
                        Respondent :

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

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                            FILED: April 16, 2024

             Rashaad Ponder (Parolee) petitions for review of the decision of the
Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board), which affirmed the Board Action recorded
April 27, 2022, denying Parolee credit for time served after being recommitted as a
convicted parole violator (CPV). On appeal, Parolee contends that the Board
miscalculated the term of his recommitment by one day. After careful review, we
dismiss this appeal as moot.
             Parolee was initially sentenced to serve a 4-year, 2-month to 10-year
term of incarceration relating to drug convictions in a State Correctional Institution
(SCI). Certified Record (C.R.) at 1-3. Originally, Parolee’s sentence carried a
minimum sentence date of March 26, 2015, and a maximum sentence date of January
26, 2021. Id. However, Parolee was paroled and recommitted on a number of
occasions. Relevant now, Parolee was granted parole and released on March 3,
2020. Id.
                  In a Board Action recorded March 5, 2020, the Board declared Parolee
delinquent effective the day of his release because he failed to report to the district
office as required by the conditions of his parole. C.R. at 40. On April 28, 2021,
while delinquent, Parolee was arrested by the Oil City Police Department for
pending criminal charges in the Venango County Court of Common Pleas (trial
court). Id. at 42-43. On that same day, the Board lodged a detainer against him. Id.
at 41.
                  According to his supervision history, Parolee was held at the Venango
County Jail following his arrest. Id. at 49-50. The Board held a violation hearing
there on January 28, 2022, wherein Parolee admitted to violating multiple conditions
of his parole.1 Id. at 103. As such, by Board Action recorded February 8, 2022, the
Board ordered Parolee to be detained pending the disposition of his criminal charges
and to be recommitted as a technical parole violator for nine months. Id. At the
time, the Board recalculated Parolee’s maximum sentence date as December 16,

         1
             The Board observed that Parolee violated the following conditions:

                  -- CONDITION #1, LEAVING THE DISTRICT WITHOUT
                  PERMISSION.

                  -- CONDITION #2, CHANGE OF RESIDENCE WITHOUT
                  PERMISSION.

                  -- CONDITION #7, FAILURE TO REPORT TO THE RENEWAL,
                  INC. #1.

C.R. at 103.
                                                   2
2022. Id. The Department of Corrections’ moves report indicates that, on that same
day, Parolee was received by SCI-Mercer in error. Id. at 151.
             Regarding his new criminal charges, Parolee did not post bail prior to
trial. C.R. at 156, 168. On February 15, 2022, Parolee was found guilty of flight to
avoid apprehension, trial, or punishment, 18 Pa. C.S. §5126.         Id. at 168-69.
Subsequently, on April 7, 2022, Parolee pleaded guilty to criminal trespass, 18 Pa.
C.S. §3503(b)(1)(i), and disorderly conduct, 18 Pa. C.S. §5503(a)(4). Ultimately,
the trial court sentenced Parolee to serve 345 days to 23 months, 29 days of
confinement in the Venango County Jail. Id. at 156, 168. The trial court credited
Parolee with 345 days toward his new sentence, to reflect the period he spent in the
Venango County Jail from April 28, 2021, to April 7, 2022.           Id. at 138-40.
Consequently, Parolee was immediately eligible for parole on his new sentence. Id.
             The Board scheduled a parole revocation hearing for March 22, 2022;
however, Parolee waived his right to a hearing and acknowledged his convictions.
C.R. at 110-13. Thereafter, in a Board Action recorded April 27, 2022, the Board
notified Parolee of its decision to recommit him as a CPV to serve 12 months of
backtime, because of his recent convictions, poor adjustment under supervision,
failure to comply with sanctions, his delinquency, prior parole failures, and because
he was considered a threat to the community. Id. at 179. The Board also used its
discretion to deny awarding Parolee any credit for time spent at liberty, because he
absconded while on parole and because of his history of parole failure. Id. at 180.
As a result, Parolee’s maximum sentence date was recalculated to November 25,
2023, with parole eligibility as early as April 7, 2023. Id.
             In a counseled administrative remedies form received on May 31, 2022,
Parolee challenged the Board Action recorded April 27, 2022, arguing that the Board

                                          3
“failed to award [Parolee] credit for all time served exclusively to its warrant or
while incarcerated.” C.R. at 184.
              By decision mailed October 5, 2022, the Board denied Parolee’s
challenge. C.R. at 195-97. The Board explained that when Parolee was released
from confinement on March 3, 2020, 597 days remained due and owing on his
original sentence. Id. at 196. “The Board’s decision to recommit him as a [CPV]
authorized the recalculation of his maximum sentence date to reflect that he received
no credit for the time spent at liberty on parole . . . . [T]his means that he owed 597
days based on the recommitment.” Id. The Board likewise noted that after Parolee’s
April 28, 2021 arrest, he was not held exclusively on the Board’s warrant as Parolee
never posted bail. Id. As such, the Board explained that he was not entitled to any
credit toward his original sentence for the time he was incarcerated from April 28,
2021, to April 7, 2022. Id. Further, under Section 6138(a)(5) of the Prisons and
Parole Code, 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(5), the Board noted that Parolee was required to
serve his new sentence prior to finishing service on his original sentence. Id. Thus,
according to the Board, Parolee did not become available to recommence service on
his original sentence until April 7, 2022, the date he was paroled on his new sentence.
Id. “Adding 597 days to April 7, 2022 yields a recalculated maximum date of
November 25, 2023.” Id. Parolee then filed the instant petition for review of the
Board’s decision.2

       2
          Our review “is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported
by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the constitutional
rights of the parolee were violated.” McNally v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole,
940 A.2d 1289, 1292 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
                                               4
               Parolee’s sole claim on appeal is that the Board failed to give him credit
for the single day spent in custody at SCI-Mercer.3                    Petitioner’s Brief at 11.
However, we need not address the merits of this claim.
               Ordinarily, “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). As such, we will
dismiss an appeal when it becomes impossible for this Court to grant the relief
sought. Id. However, we will nevertheless address the merits of such a claim when
the issues involved are capable of repetition yet likely to evade review, important to
the public interest, or where a party will suffer some detriment without the Court’s
decision. Id.
               Presently, Parolee’s maximum date of November 25, 2023, has passed.4
Because he is no longer serving that sentence, his appeal is moot. Moreover, the
credit issues raised in Parolee’s appeal will likely repeat, but will not evade review
and have, in fact, been addressed by numerous decisions of this Court and our

       3
          In his Petition, Parolee also argues that the Board failed to award Parolee credit for the
time that he spent at liberty on parole. Petition ¶7. However, in his subsequent brief to this Court,
Parolee concedes this argument. Initially, Parolee observes that the Board must articulate its
decision to deny credit for time spent at liberty on parole by identifying the facts of the case
significant to its determination. Petitioner’s Brief at 13 (citing Gruzinski v. Department of Public
Welfare, 731 A.2d 246, 251 n.14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)); see also Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of
Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466, 474-75 (Pa. 2017) (When granting or denying credit for time
spent at liberty on parole, the Board must articulate its basis for doing so and “provide a
contemporaneous statement explaining its reason[ing.]”). However, Parolee ultimately concludes:
“In this case, [the Board] set forth sufficient facts related to the parolee to ensure the decision was
not arbitrary.” Petitioner’s Brief at 13.

       4
          There is no evidence of record demonstrating that Parolee has committed any additional
crimes or that new criminal charges were brought against him that could further extend his
maximum sentence date. To the contrary, it appears Parolee is no longer in the custody and control
of the Commonwealth. See Inmate Locator, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
http://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov (last visited 4/15/2024).
                                                  5
Supreme Court.5 Finally, Parolee will not suffer any detriment without this Court’s
decision because he is no longer serving his original sentence.

       5
          Parolee argues that the Board failed to award credit for the day that he spent in custody
at SCI-Mercer on February 8, 2022, as indicated by the Department of Corrections’ moves report.
Petitioner’s Brief at 12. Parolee contends that he was moved there as a technical parole violator
pending by Board Action recorded February 8, 2022. Id. Because that Board Action recommitted
Parolee as a technical parole violator, per Section 6138(d) of the Prisons and Parole Code, 61
Pa. C.S §6138(d), and did not include the language “when available,” he believes this single day
of confinement in SCI-Mercer should have been credited toward backtime or confinement time.
Id. at 12-13.

        However, this argument fails. First, the Department of Corrections’ moves report dated
April 27, 2022, indicates that Parolee was received by SCI-Mercer in error. C.R. at 151. If this
day were credited towards his original sentence, it would mean that Parolee did not serve the 345-
day minimum term required by the trial court on his new sentence and he would have been
ineligible for parole on April 7, 2022. Furthermore, this Board Action also referred to and was
subject to an earlier Board Action recorded December 23, 2021, which ordered Parolee to be
detained pending the disposition of his criminal charges. See id. at 103. After his convictions, the
Board recommitted Parolee as a CPV which necessarily governed the term of his recommitment.
See 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2) (authorizing the recalculation of a CPV’s maximum term upon parole
revocation).

        To that end, concerning CPVs, Section 6318(a)(5)(iii) of the Prisons and Parole Code
requires “the service of the new term for the latter crime [to] precede commencement of the term
originally imposed.” 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(5)(iii). However, it is well settled that a CPV is entitled
to credit for time served pending the disposition of a new criminal conviction when the CPV has
posted bail and is, therefore, being held solely on the Board’s warrant. Gaito v. Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. 1980). “If a defendant, however, remains
incarcerated prior to trial because he has failed to satisfy bail requirements on the new criminal
charges, then the time spent in custody shall be credited to his new sentence.” Id. See also
Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348, 352 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2007); Hammonds v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 143 A.3d 994, 997 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2016).

       Here, it is immaterial that Parolee spent a single day in custody at SCI-Mercer. Parolee
did not complete service for the minimum term on his new sentence until April 7, 2021, and he
was therefore unavailable to begin service on his original sentence until that day. As such, he was
unavailable to serve his original sentence on February 8, 2022, the single day he spent at SCI-
Mercer. Likewise, Parolee did not post bail on any of his new criminal charges. See C.R. at 156,
(Footnote continued on next page…)
                                                 6
               Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as moot.

                                             MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

Judge Wallace concurs in result only.

168. Thus, from April 28, 2021, to April 7, 2022, Parolee was not being held solely on the Board’s
detainer and he was not entitled to credit for time served toward his original sentence. Rather,
consistent with Gaito, this period was correctly credited toward his new sentence. Ultimately, the
Board correctly recalculated Parolee’s maximum expiration date by adding 597 days to April 7,
2022, rendering his maximum sentence date as November 23, 2023.

                                                7
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Rashaad Ponder,                    :
                                   :
                        Petitioner :
                                   :
          v.                       : No. 1123 C.D. 2022
                                   :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,         :
                                   :
                        Respondent :

                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2024, the petition for review filed
in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED as moot.

                                   __________________________________
                                   MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge