Court Opinion

ID: 9960445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:11:09.543446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:28.267562
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kelly B. Donahue,                       :
                    Petitioner          :
                                        :   No. 239 C.D. 2022
            v.                          :
                                        :   Submitted: March 8, 2024
Pennsylvania Parole Board,              :
                  Respondent            :

BEFORE:     HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
            HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
            HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                FILED: April 16, 2024

            Kelly B. Donahue (Petitioner), pro se, petitions for review of the March
3, 2022 order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board), which affirmed its November
3, 2021 determination recommitting Petitioner as a convicted parole violator (CPV)
and recalculating his parole violation maximum date. Upon careful review, we affirm.
                           I. Facts and Procedural History
            Petitioner was released on parole from multiple sentences on February 9,
2016, upon successful completion of the sex offender program, to a county detainer
and to a specialized community corrections center when a bed date was available.
(Certified Record (C.R.) at 13.) Petitioner’s maximum date was May 3, 2028. Id. On
October 19, 2016, Petitioner pled guilty to providing false identification to law
enforcement and was sentenced to 12 months’ probation with immediate release to his
parole detainer. Id. at 62.          On January 26, 2017, the Board issued a decision
recommitting Petitioner to a state correctional institution (SCI) as a CPV. Id. at 17-19.
Petitioner’s original maximum date was recalculated to September 19, 2028. Id. at 20.1
                On December 23, 2019, Petitioner absconded from parole supervision and
was declared delinquent by the Board effective that date. Id. at 60. On January 15,
2020, Petitioner was arrested by the Harrisburg Police Department for providing false
information and failing to register as a sex offender. Id. at 60. That same day, the
Board lodged its detainer. Id. at 56. On January 28, 2020, Petitioner was confined to
the Dauphin County Prison after he was unable to post bail. Id. at 123. The Board
issued a Notice of Charges and Hearing based on Petitioner’s conviction on the new
charges. Id. at 57. The same day, Petitioner waived his right to a revocation hearing
and counsel and admitted to the conviction. Id. at 58-59. On February 18, 2020, the
Board issued a decision to detain Petitioner, pending disposition of criminal charges.
Id. at 85.
                On August 12, 2021, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to failure to register
with the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and failure to verify address/be photographed
in violation of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4915.2(a)(1)-(2)2 and was sentenced to one and one half

       1
         Petitioner’s custody for return date was October 19, 2016, he was given 114 days’ credit and
his backtime owed was 4,353 days. (C.R. at 20.)

       2
           Section 4915.2(a)(1)-(2) provides:
                (a) Offense defined.--An individual who is subject to registration under 42 Pa.C.S. §
                9799.55(a), (a.1) or (b) (relating to registration) or who was subject to registration
                under former 42 Pa.C.S. § 9793 (relating to registration of certain offenders for ten
                years) commits an offense if the individual knowingly fails to:
                        (1) register with the [PSP] as required under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.56 (relating to
                        registration procedures and applicability);
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                   2
to three years’ incarceration. Id. at 94. He received 563 days’ credit toward his new
sentence for the time he was incarcerated awaiting sentencing and unable to post bail,
from January 28, 2020, to August 13, 2021. Id. at 94. On September 9, 2021, Petitioner
signed documentation with the Board waiving his right to counsel and a revocation
hearing and admitting his criminal convictions. Id. at 90-92. On September 22, 2021,
a hearing examiner and a Board member executed and signed a revocation hearing
report recommitting Petitioner as a CPV to serve the balance of his original sentence.
Id. at 112-119. Thereafter, on November 3, 2021, the Board recorded its action and
recommitted Petitioner as a CPV to serve 12 months’ backtime and denied him any
credit for time spent in good standing while at liberty on parole because Petitioner had
absconded while on parole supervision. Id. at 140-43. Petitioner was awarded 13 days’
credit for the period of January 15, 2020, to January 28, 2020, when he was held solely
on the Board’s warrant. In recalculating Petitioner’s new maximum sentence date, the
Board determined that Petitioner owed 3,681 days on his original maximum sentence.
Discounting the period of time from Petitioner’s release date, August 9, 2018, to the
date of his recommitment as a CPV, the Board added the 3,681 days to the date it voted
to recommit Petitioner, September 22, 2021, and recalculated his maximum sentence
date as October 21, 2031. Id.
               On November 24, 2021, the Board received Petitioner’s administrative
remedies form challenging the Board’s decision. Id. at 157. The form, submitted
through counsel, claimed that (1) Petitioner’s aggregated sentence had been
miscalculated; (2) the Board failed to give Petitioner credit for all time incarcerated or

                      (2) verify the individual’s residence or be photographed as required under 42
                      Pa.C.S. § 9799.60 (relating to verification of residence).
18 Pa.C.S. § § 4915.2(a)(1)-(2).

                                                3
served solely pursuant to the Board’s warrant; and (3) the Board used the wrong
custody for return date in calculating Petitioner’s maximum date. Id. at 157.
               By decision dated March 3, 2022, the Board initially noted that, to the
extent that Petitioner’s aggregated sentence was miscalculated, such concern should be
addressed by the records department for the Department of Corrections and not the
Board. Id. at 160. Next, the Board stated that, based on the record, Petitioner was
properly awarded 13 days’ credit toward his original sentence because he was held
solely on the Board’s warrant during that period (January 15, 2020, to January 28,
2020). The Board explained that Petitioner was not entitled to credit on his original
sentence from January 28, 2020, to August 12, 2021, because he did not post bail on
his new criminal charges and, thus, the Board did not hold him solely on its detainer
following his arrest. Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d
568 (Pa. 1980). Finally, the Board concluded that pursuant to Section 6138(a)(4)-(5)(i)
of the Prisons and Parole Code (Code), 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(4)-(5)(i),3 a CPV who is

       3
        Section 6138(a)(1) of the Code provides the Board with the authority to recommit a parolee
as a CPV. Subsections (4) and (5) of this provision state as follows:
               (4) The period of time for which the parole violator is required to serve
               shall be computed from and begin on the date that the parole violator is
               taken into custody to be returned to the institution as a parole violator.
               (5) If a new sentence is imposed on the parolee, the service of the
               balance of the term originally imposed by a Pennsylvania court shall
               precede the commencement of the new term imposed in the following
               cases:
                      (i) If a person is paroled from a State correctional institution and
                      the new sentence imposed on the person is to be served in the
                      State correctional institution.
61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(4)-(5)(i).

                                                   4
released on parole and receives a new sentence while on parole must first serve the
original sentence before beginning the terms of the new sentence. According to the
Board, Petitioner did not become available to serve his original sentence until
September 22, 2021, because that was the date the Board had voted to recommit him
as a CPV.4 Id. at 160-62. This appeal followed.5
                                            II. Issues
              On appeal,6 Petitioner raises the following issues: (1) whether the Board
erred in determining his custody for return date; and (2) whether the Board abused its
discretion by failing to award Petitioner credit for all time served in good standing on
parole.
                                         III. Discussion
                                A. Custody for Return Date
              Petitioner argues that his custody for return date should be August 12,
2021, the day he was sentenced for his new conviction, and not September 22, 2021,
the day the Board voted to revoke his parole. We disagree.

       4
         After reviewing the record, this Court notes that the March 3, 2022 Board decision contains
an error. The Board erroneously noted the wrong maximum date of August 19, 2028, from
Petitioner’s original sentence instead of September 19, 2028, therefore reducing the total backtime
owed by one month. However, the Board did state the correct recalculated maximum date. This
typographical error does not have any impact on the decision of this case.

       5
         The Petition for Review was filed by Attorney Kent Watkins, Petitioner’s counsel (Counsel),
on March 22, 2022. On April 21, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis. On July 22, 2022, Petitioner’s brief was submitted by Counsel. Subsequently, Counsel was
granted an application to withdraw as counsel on May 16, 2023, and Petitioner did not submit any
briefs on his own behalf after that date.

       6
          Our standard of review is limited to a determination of whether the necessary findings are
supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether constitutional
rights of the parolee were violated. See 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation
and Parole, 189 A.3d 16, 18 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

                                                 5
              Recently, in Wiles v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa.
Cmwlth., No. 503 C.D. 2019, filed February 10, 2020),7 this Court addressed the very
same argument that Petitioner raises here. In that case, the petitioner contended that,
under Section 6138(a)(4)-(5) of the Code, he was placed in the custody of the Board
on “the date on which he was sentenced for the new conviction” because, at that time,
“he was available to begin serving his backtime.” Wiles, slip op. at 5. The petitioner
argued that, as such, his sentencing date on the new convictions should have been the
baseline day the Board used to calculate his new maximum sentence date. In rejecting
the petitioner’s contentions, we stated as follows:
              This Court has examined the plain language of Section 6138
              numerous times and has long held that a CPV only becomes
              available to serve backtime on the date his parole is
              revoked, not the date he is sentenced for a new criminal
              conviction. Barnes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
              Parole, 203 A.3d 382, 392 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019); Hill v.
              Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 683 A.2d 699,
              702 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of
              Probation and Parole, 654 A.2d 235, 237 (Pa. Cmwlth.
              1995); Campbell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
              Parole, 409 A.2d 980, 982 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). Parole
              revocation occurs when a hearing examiner and a Board
              member, or two Board members, sign a hearing report
              recommitting a parolee as a CPV. 61 Pa.C.S. §6113(b).
              When the Board recommits a CPV to serve the balance of his
              original sentence, the backtime must be computed from the
              revocation date. Hill, 683 A.2d at 702; Campbell, 409 A.2d
              at 982. If a CPV has served time prior to the date the Board
              revokes his parole, that time must be applied to his new
              sentence. Wilson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
              Parole, 124 A.3d 767, 770 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); Campbell,
              409 A.2d at 982. We decline [the petitioner’s] invitation to
              disturb this well-settled precedent.

       7
         We cite Wiles, Flynn, and Williams for their persuasive value in accordance with Section
414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures. 210 Pa. Code §69.414(a).

                                               6
Wiles, slip op. at 6 (emphasis added); see also Flynn v. Pennsylvania Parole Board
(Pa. Cmwlth., No. 181 C.D. 2020, filed October 26, 2020).
                As our decision in Wiles illustrates, Petitioner’s argument is directly
refuted by our case law. Petitioner was sentenced on August 12, 2019. On September
9, 2019, Petitioner waived his right to counsel and a revocation hearing and admitted
his criminal convictions. On September 22, 2021, a hearing examiner and a Board
member executed and signed a revocation hearing report recommitting Petitioner as a
CPV to serve the balance of his original sentence. Pursuant to Wiles, Petitioner became
available to serve backtime on September 22, 2021, the date his parole was revoked.
Therefore, the Board correctly used the parole revocation date and not the sentencing
date as Petitioner’s custody for return date in Petitioner’s new maximum sentence date
calculations.
                     B. Credit for Time Spent at Liberty on Parole
                Section 6138(a)(2.1) of Code “unambiguously grants the Board discretion
to award credit to a CPV recommitted to serve the remainder of his sentence.” Pittman
v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159 A.3d 466, 473 (Pa. 2017). There
are two enumerated exceptions to the Board’s discretion to award credit. Specifically,
Section 6138(a)(2.1)(i-ii) of the Code provides that the Board may, in its discretion,
“award credit to an offender . . . 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
                Section 9714(g) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(g)]
                or a crime listed under 42 Pa. C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H[8]

      8
          42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.40.

                                             7
               (relating to registration of sexual offenders) or I[9] (relating
               to continued registration of sexual offenders).
               (ii) The offender was recommitted under section 6143
               (relating to early parole of offenders subject to Federal
               removal order).

61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1)(i)-(ii). Given that Petitioner was actually convicted of, inter
alia, failing to register as a sex offender, the exception in Section 6138(a)(2.1)(ii)
applies.
               In Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth.,
No. 1149 C.D. 2019, filed April 24, 2020), the Board recommitted the petitioner to
serve his unexpired term as a CPV after he pled guilty to Involuntary Deviate Sexual
Intercourse with a Child, Sexual Abuse of Children (Photograph/Film/Depict on
Computer Sex Act – Knowingly or Permitting a Child), and Incest. The Board did not
award the petitioner credit for the time spent at liberty on parole. After the Board
denied the petitioner’s request for administrative relief, he appealed to this Court. We
explained that “Section 9714(g) of the Judicial Code defines ‘rape, involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, incest, [and] sexual assault’ as crimes
of violence. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(g).” Williams, slip op. at 6. Therefore, under Section
6138(a)(2.1)(i), the Board was precluded from awarding the petitioner credit; thus he
was not entitled to credit for his time spent at liberty on parole.
               As in Williams, Section 6138(a)(2.1)(i) applies to Petitioner. Petitioner
committed a crime listed under 42 Pa. C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H, failure to register with the
PSP and failure to verify address/be photographed. Therefore, the Board did not err in
declining to award Petitioner credit for time spent at liberty on parole.

      9
          42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.51-9799.75.

                                              8
                                 IV. Conclusion
            Accordingly, discerning no error in the Board’s decision, we affirm the
Board’s order.

                                        ________________________________
                                        PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

                                        9
           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kelly B. Donahue,                    :
                    Petitioner       :
                                     :    No. 239 C.D. 2022
           v.                        :
                                     :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,           :
                  Respondent         :

                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2024, the March 3, 2022 order of
the Pennsylvania Parole Board is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                         ________________________________
                                         PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge