Court Opinion

ID: 9947245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 14:09:32.534597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:17.667287
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Luis Pearson,                                    :
                       Petitioner                :
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,                       :    No. 1533 C.D. 2022
                  Respondent                     :    Submitted: February 6, 2024

BEFORE:         HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
                HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
                HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                                    FILED: March 4, 2024

                Luis Pearson (Pearson) petitions this Court for review of the
Pennsylvania Parole Board’s (Board) September 22, 2022 order (mailed September
23, 2022), affirming the Board decision recorded on August 26, 2021 (mailed
September 3, 2021). This Court appointed Schuylkill County Assistant Public
Defender, Kent D. Watkins, Esquire (Counsel), to represent Pearson. Counsel has
filed an Application for Leave to Withdraw Appearance (Application) and submitted
a no-merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988)
(Turner Letter),1 in support thereof. After review, this Court grants Counsel’s
Application and affirms the Board’s order.

      1
          This Court has explained the use of a no-merit letter as follows:
                Through this type of letter, an attorney seeks to withdraw from
                representation of a parole violator because “the [violator’s] case
                lacks merit, even if it is not so anemic as to be deemed wholly
                frivolous.” Com[monwealth] v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 722 (Pa.
                Super. 2007).
              On August 10, 2010, Pearson pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with
serious bodily injury and the Lehigh County Common Pleas Court sentenced him to
5 to 12 years of incarceration (Original Sentence). See Certified Record (C.R.) at 1.
Pearson’s Original Sentence maximum release date was September 28, 2021. See
C.R. at 2. Relative to the instant case, on July 23, 2018, the Board issued an order
to release Pearson on parole from his Original Sentence. See C.R. at 33. His
Original Sentence maximum release date at that time was April 1, 2022. See id.
Pearson’s actual release date was June 15, 2019. See id.
              On July 10, 2019, the Delaware County Police Department arrested
Pearson for multiple drug charges (Delaware County charges). See C.R. at 40. The
Board issued a warrant to commit and detain Pearson on July 10, 2019. See C.R. at
38. On July 11, 2019, the Delaware County Common Pleas Court (Delaware County
court) set bail. See C.R. at 64. Pearson did not post bail. See C.R. at 63. On April
27, 2021, Pearson pleaded guilty to felony possession of contraband/controlled
substance, and the Delaware County court sentenced Pearson to time served to 23
months. See C.R. at 40, 53. The Board verified the conviction on April 29, 2021.
Pearson signed a waiver of revocation hearing and counsel/admission form on July
9, 2021. See C.R. at 42-44.

                  Such letters are referred to by various names by courts of
                  this Commonwealth.          See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
                  Porter, . . . 728 A.2d 890, 893 [] n.2 ([Pa.] 1999) (referring
                  to such a letter as a “‘no merit’ letter” and noting that such
                  a letter is also commonly referred to as a “Finley letter,”
                  referring to the Superior Court case Commonwealth v.
                  Finley, . . . 479 A.2d 568 ([Pa. Super.] 1984)); Zerby v.
                  Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (“Turner
                  letter”); Commonwealth v. Blackwell, 936 A.2d 497, 499
                  (Pa. Super. [] 2007) (“Turner/Finley letter”).
              Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 977 A.2d 19, 25 n.2 (Pa.
              Cmwlth. 2009).
Anderson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 237 A.3d 1203, 1204 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020).
                                                2
              On July 10, 2021, the Board’s Hearing Examiner recommitted Pearson
as a convicted parole violator (CPV) and sentenced him to nine months of backtime.2
See C.R. at 59. By September 2, 2021 order, the Board recalculated Pearson’s
Original Sentence maximum release date to March 20, 2024. See C.R. at 75. On
September 21, 2022, Pearson filed a request for administrative relief. See C.R. at
80-82. On September 23, 2022, the Board affirmed its decision recorded on August
26, 2021 (mailed September 3, 2021). Pearson appealed to this Court.3
              By March 2, 2023 Order, this Court appointed the Schuylkill County
Public Defender’s Office to represent Pearson. On March 8, 2023, Counsel entered
his appearance. On May 22, 2023, Counsel filed his Application and his Turner
Letter. By May 24, 2023 Order, this Court informed Pearson that he may, within 30
days after service of the Order on him by Counsel, either obtain substitute counsel
at his own expense and have new counsel enter an appearance and file a brief in
support of the Petition for Review, or file a brief on his own behalf.4
              Before addressing Pearson’s substantive arguments, this Court must
assess the adequacy of Counsel’s Turner Letter. This Court has explained:

              “A [Turner] letter must include an explanation of ‘the
              nature and extent of counsel’s review and list each issue
              the petitioner wished to have raised, with counsel’s
              explanation of why those issues are meritless.’”

       2
          The other Board Member concurred on July 15, 2021. See C.R. at 60. “The [B]oard may
make decisions . . . in panels of two persons. A panel shall consist of one [B]oard member and
one hearing examiner or of two board members.” Section 6113(b) of the Prisons and Parole Code,
61 Pa.C.S. § 6113(b).
        3
          “This Court’s ‘review over actions of the Board is limited to determining whether the
decision was supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law occurred or whether
constitutional rights were violated.’ Ramos v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. [&] Parole, 954 A.2d 107, 109 n.1
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).” Brown v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 184 A.3d 1021, 1023 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2017).
        4
          Counsel also notified Pearson regarding the same in his Turner Letter. On May 24, 2023,
Counsel served the Order on Pearson. Pearson did not obtain substitute counsel or file a pro se
brief with this Court.
                                               3
            Seilhamer[ v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole], 996 A.2d [40,]
            43 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)] (quoting Turner, 544 A.2d at
            928) (some alterations omitted). As long as a Turner letter
            satisfies these basic requirements, [this Court] may then
            review the soundness of a petitioner’s request for relief.
            Zerby[ v. Shanon], 964 A.2d [956,] 960 [(Pa. Cmwlth.
            2009)]. However, if the Turner letter fails on technical
            grounds, [this Court] must deny the request for leave to
            withdraw, without delving into the substance of the
            underlying petition for review, and may direct counsel to
            file either an amended request for leave to withdraw or a
            brief on behalf of their client. Id.

Anderson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 237 A.3d 1203, 1207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020).
            Here, Counsel stated in his Turner Letter that he reviewed the Certified
Record, examined the relevant case law and statutes, and corresponded with Pearson.
Further, Counsel presented the procedural history of Pearson’s case, set forth and
addressed the issue Pearson raised in his administrative appeal, and concluded based
on his exhaustive examination of the record and research that Pearson’s appeal is
without merit. Counsel also notified Pearson regarding the same in his Turner
Letter.   After review, this Court concludes that Counsel complied with the
procedural requirements for withdrawing from representation.
            Pearson argues that because the Delaware County court sentenced him
to time served to 23 months of incarceration and specified that the time served was
from July 11, 2019 to January 11, 2020, and further specified that the “sentence
[was] effective today 4/27/[20]21[,] [c]oncurrent to state sentence/supervision[,]”
the Board miscalculated his new Original Sentence maximum release date. C.R. at
53. Specifically, Pearson contends that because the Delaware County court did not
give him credit for the time spent incarcerated on the Board’s warrant and Delaware
County’s charges, that time must be credited towards his Original Sentence.

                                         4
The Board explained:

On July 10, 2019, the Board lodged its detainer against
[Pearson]. On July 11, 2019, local authorities in Delaware
County arrested [Pearson] for new criminal charges that
occurred the previous day, and bail was set at $48,800[.00]
monetary which [Pearson] did not post. On April 27,
2021, [Pearson] [was] sentenced in Delaware County to a
new term of incarceration of time served to 23 months to
be served in Delaware County Prison. On June 4, 2021,
Judge Bradley in Delaware County signed an order
paroling [Pearson] from [his] new Delaware County
sentence. Based on these facts, [Pearson] [is] entitled to
one day of pre-sentence credit from July 10, 2019 to July
11, 2019[,] because the Board held [Pearson] solely on its
warrant for that day. Because [Pearson] failed to post bail
on [his] new criminal charges, [he] [is] not entitled to any
pre-sentence credit toward [his] [O]riginal [S]entence
after July 11, 2019, as the Board did not hold [Pearson]
solely on its detainer following [his] arraignment in
Delaware County. Gaito v. Pa. [Bd.] of Prob[.] [&]
Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980). This means [Pearson]
owed 1021-1 = 1020 days on [his] [O]riginal [S]entence
based on the recommitment. Additionally, the fact that
Delaware County did not apply credit for time spent
incarcerated on both the new Delaware County charges
and the Board’s detainer is not an error the Board can fix.
The Board must calculate based on the rules of bail first
and foremost. Melhorn v. [Pa.] [Bd.] of Prob[.] [&]
Parole, 883 A.2d 1123 (Pa. [Cmwlth]. 2005), rev’d, 908
A.2d 266 (Pa. 2006).
The Prisons and Parole Code [(Parole Code)] provides that
a CPV who was released from a state correctional
institution and receives a new sentence to be served in a
county facility must serve the balance of the new term
first. 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5). This means that [Pearson]
became available to commence service of [his] [O]riginal
[S]entence on June 4, 2021, when [he] [was] paroled from
Delaware County. Adding 1020 days to June 4, 2021[,]
yields a recalculated [Original Sentence] maximum
[release] date of March 20, 2024. Thus, the Board
properly recalculated [Pearson’s] [Original Sentence]
maximum [release] date.

                             5
C.R. at 83-84.
             Section 6138(a)(5) of the Parole Code provides:
             If a new sentence is imposed on the offender, 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 [s]tate correctional
                 institution and the new sentence imposed on the person
                 is to be served in the [s]tate correctional institution.
                 (ii) If a person is paroled from a county prison and the
                 new sentence imposed upon him is to be served in the
                 same county prison.
                 (iii) In all other cases, the service of the new term for
                 the latter crime shall precede commencement of the
                 balance of the term originally imposed.

61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5) (emphasis added).
             In Gaito the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held:

             [I]f a defendant is being held in custody solely because of
             a detainer lodged by the Board and has otherwise met the
             requirements for bail on the new criminal charges, the time
             which he spent in custody shall be credited against his
             original sentence. 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.[FN]6
                   [FN]6
                         It is clear, of course, that if a parolee is not
                   convicted, or if no new sentence is imposed for
                   that conviction on the new charge, the pre-trial
                   custody time must be applied to the parolee’s
                   original sentence.

Gaito, 412 A.2d at 571. In Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole,
840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003), our Supreme Court explained: “Our intent in articulating
the footnote in Gaito, was that, ‘if a parolee is not convicted, or if no new [period of
incarceration] is imposed for that conviction on the new charge, the pre-trial custody
                                           6
time must be applied to the parolee’s original sentence.’” Id. at 305. The Martin
Court held that “where an offender is incarcerated on both a Board detainer and new
criminal charges, all time spent in confinement must be credited to either the new
sentence or the original sentence.” Id. at 309.
             However, the law is well settled that “where a sentencing court does
not give an inmate full credit for time served, the inmate’s remedy is in the trial court
and through the direct appeal process, not through the Board.” Armbruster v. Pa.
Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348, 356 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); see also Melhorn.
Here, Pearson claims that although the new sentence was longer than the pre-
sentence confinement, because the Delaware County court did not give him full
credit for his time served, that time should be credited to his Original Sentence.
“Under the facts presented here, [this Court] conclude[s] that the Board properly
refused to apply [Pearson’s] pre-sentence confinement time towards his [O]riginal
[S]entence.” Armbruster, 919 A.2d at 356.
             Because this Court agrees that Pearson’s claim has no merit, Counsel’s
Application is granted, and the Board’s order is affirmed.

                                         _________________________________
                                         ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

                                           7
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Luis Pearson,                        :
                 Petitioner          :
                                     :
            v.                       :
                                     :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,           :   No. 1533 C.D. 2022
                  Respondent         :

                                 ORDER

            AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2024, Kent D. Watkins, Esquire’s
Application for Leave to Withdraw Appearance is GRANTED, and the
Pennsylvania Parole Board’s September 22, 2022 order (mailed September 23,
2022) is AFFIRMED.

                                   _________________________________
                                   ANNE E. COVEY, Judge