Court Opinion

ID: 9631489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:39:59.073847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:55.044195
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
FRIEDMAN, Judge.
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority that Richard White (White) waived the credit issue in this case. In fact, it is impossible to decide the second issue, regarding excessive backtime, without determining first whether White’s time in custody from March 19,2002, to October 8, 2002, was a result of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s (Board) detainer warrant or the new criminal charges.
On November 3, 2001, while on parole, White was involved in an automobile accident. In connection with the accident, White was issued a summons to appear in court on March 19, 2002, for a preliminary hearing on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). On February 11, 2002, the Board issued a detainer warrant, relating to another matter, and took White into custody.
On March 19, 2002, White appeared in court for a preliminary hearing on the DUI charge, but White waived the preliminary hearing. At this point, White’s version of the facts differs from that of the Board. The Board’s records show that White was arrested for DUI by the Pennsylvania State Police on March 19, 2002, and that White did not post bail. (C.R. at 20.) Thus, the Board believes that, as of March 19, 2002, White was being held on the new criminal charges. White denies that he was arrested for DUI on March 19, 2002. Thus, White believes that, after March 19, 2002, he still was being held under the Board’s detainer warrant.
On October 8, 2002, White was convicted and sentenced for DUI and was immediately paroled to his original sentence. On February 11, 2003, the Board recommitted White as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to serve six months backtime. If the Board is correct that White was arrested and failed to post bail on March 19, 2002, then, as of February 11, 2003, "White already had served five months backtime. That is why the Board scheduled White for a parole review at the next available docket. However, if White is correct about the events of March 19, 2002, then, as of February 11, 2003, White already had served more than twelve months backtime. If "White already had served twelve months *824backtime, then it would have been an abuse of discretion for the Board to recommit White to serve six months backtime.
When White saw that the Board failed to credit his original sentence for the twelve months he served from February 11, 2002, until February 11, 2003, White filed a petition for administrative review. White alleges in that petition that he already had served more than twelve months backtime when he received six months backtime. (C.R. at 58.) The majority states that this does not preserve the credit issue. (Majority op. at 3.) However, I believe that an allegation asserting an amount of backtime that is contrary to the Board’s determination of the amount of backtime precisely states the issue. Certainly, when the Board receives a petition for administrative review alleging a fact that is contrary to the facts set forth in its own records, the Board will want to review its records to ensure that they are correct. That is the purpose of a petition for administrative review. In his petition, White points out possible errors made by the Board, and he asks the Board to conduct a review. Because the Board did not conduct a review of this issue, I would remand this case to the Board for a hearing to ascertain what actually happened on March 19, 2002.
Such a result is consistent with this court’s holding in Pierce v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 92 Pa. Cmwlth. 457, 500 A.2d 181 (1985). In Pierce, this court held that, when a parolee claims that he was detained solely on a Board warrant rather than on new criminal charges, “the Board must bear the burden of justifying its computation of re-commitment time by presenting substantial evidence that bail was not posted.” Id. at 183. “A Petitioner can then rebut this evidence by demonstrating that the Board’s evidence inaccurately reflects that he did not post bail.” Id. This court decided that the Board should hold a hearing to determine whether the parolee posted bail, and this court remanded the case for that purpose. Id.
Here, the Board’s records show that White was arrested on March 19, 2002, and did not post bail, and White claims that the records are not accurate. Pursuant to Pierce, White is entitled to an opportunity to be heard on this matter.