Court Opinion

ID: 9406948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 14:07:23.126038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.884493
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tyreek Jackson,                        :
                   Petitioner          :
                                       :
      v.                               : No. 650 M.D. 2019
                                       :
Pennsylvania Department                :
of Corrections,                        :
                 Respondent            : Submitted: June 5, 2023

BEFORE:      HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
             HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
             HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE CEISLER                          FILED: July 5, 2023

      Currently before this Court are dueling motions for judgment on the pleadings
submitted, respectively, by Petitioner Tyreek Jackson (Jackson), who is currently
incarcerated within our Commonwealth’s prison system, and Respondent
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) regarding Jackson’s Petition
for Writ of Mandamus (Mandamus Petition). Through this Mandamus Petition,
which was filed in our original jurisdiction, Jackson asserts that the Department has
failed to calculate his carceral sentences in a manner which properly accounts for all
of the time credit to which he is entitled, and requests that we direct the Department
to correct this putative error. After thorough review, we deny Jackson’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Motion) and, in addition, partially grant and partially
deny the Department’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Cross-
Motion).
                                         I. Background
       The relevant, undisputed facts are as follows.1 At some point in either late
1998 or early 1999, Jackson was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County (Common Pleas) of one count each of aggravated assault;
attempted murder; carrying a firearm without a license; carrying a firearm in public
in Philadelphia; criminal conspiracy; possession of an instrument of crime, and
robbery.2 On May 7, 1999, Common Pleas sentenced Jackson to a lengthy term in
state prison.3 Jackson was subsequently paroled from this sentence on January 9,
2006. Am. Answer ¶17; Jackson’s Response to Department’s Am. Answer with New
Matter (Response) ¶17.
       Jackson subsequently committed a multitude of crimes and parole violations
over the ensuing years. On June 29, 2006, he was detained for violating his parole

       1
          We have filled in some of the informational gaps regarding Jackson’s convictions by
taking judicial notice of the particulars of his state-level criminal cases, as permitted by law. See,
e.g., Pa. R.E. 201(b)(2); Doxsey v. Com., 674 A.2d 1173, 1174 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). These cases,
all of which were filed in Common Pleas, can be found under docket numbers CP-51-CR-1000591-
1998, CP-51-CR-0011388-2007, and CP-51-CR-0007006-2012, and list Jackson’s name as either
“Tyree Jackson” or “Tyree Lamar Jackson.” Though there are obvious discrepancies between these
cases’ docket sheets and the Mandamus Petition regarding the proper spelling of Jackson’s full
name, both parties are in agreement that these cases are ones in which Jackson was criminally
charged and convicted. See Mandamus Petition ¶¶1, 4-6, 9-11, Department’s Am. Answer with
New Matter (Amended Answer) ¶¶1, 4-5, 14, 16-17, 21-26, 29, 31-37.

       2
           This case was docketed as CP-51-CR-1000591-1998.

       3
         Jackson received the following sentences on May 7, 1999: aggravated assault, 42 to 156
months; attempted murder, 42 to 156 months; carrying a firearm without a license, 36 to 72
months; criminal conspiracy, 60 to 120 months; possession of an instrument of crime, 12 to 24
months; robbery, 42 to 156 months; and unlawful carrying of a firearm in public in Philadelphia,
12 to 24 months. The docket sheet for CP-51-CR-1000591-1998 does not show whether the
sentences for each individual crime were concurrent or consecutive. However, it appears that the
parties are in agreement that these sentences all ran concurrently. See Am. Answer ¶24 and
Response ¶24 (stating that the maximum date on Jackson’s 1999 sentence was recalculated on
April 9, 2009, as October 17, 2012).

                                                  2
and was subsequently released on August 26, 2006. Am. Answer ¶¶18-19; Response
¶¶18-19. Jackson was then arrested in Philadelphia and charged with one count each
of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and possession of an
instrument of crime.4 Am. Answer ¶20; Response ¶20. On September 10, 2008,
Jackson pled guilty to both charges and Common Pleas sentenced him to a county-
level term of 11.5 to 23 months, along with 3 years of probation. Am. Answer ¶21;
Response ¶21. Thereafter, on April 9, 2009, Jackson was recommitted as a convicted
parole violator (CPV), whereupon he served slightly more than 29 months of
backtime on his 1999 sentence, before he was once again paroled on September 14,
2011. Am. Answer ¶¶24-25; Response ¶¶24-25. On April 13, 2012, Jackson was
arrested in Philadelphia and was charged with one count each of aggravated assault;
burglary; possession of an instrument of crime; robbery; unlawful carrying of a
firearm in public in Philadelphia; and unlawful possession of a firearm.5 He was then
arrested by federal authorities on June 30, 2014, charged with aggravated identity
theft, convicted of that crime on November 25, 2014, and sentenced to 30 months in
federal prison. Am. Answer ¶¶27-28; Response ¶¶27-28, Ex. A. On June 25, 2015,
Jackson was found guilty on all of the aforementioned state-level charges that had
been lodged against him in 2012 and, on October 26, 2015, Common Pleas sentenced
him to an aggregate term of 14 to 30 years in state prison. Am. Answer ¶29;
Response ¶29, Ex. B. Jackson completed his federal sentence on September 1, 2016,
whereupon he was remanded to state custody and began serving CPV backtime on
his 1999 sentence. Am. Answer ¶¶30, 32; Response ¶¶30, 32. While Jackson was
serving this backtime, Common Pleas revoked his probation for his 2008 conviction

      4
          This case was docketed as CP-51-CR-0011388-2007.

      5
          This case was docketed as CP-51-CR-0007006-2012.

                                             3
and sentenced him to 3 to 6 years in state prison on October 13, 2016 (2016 VOP
sentence), to be served concurrently with his other state sentences. Am. Answer ¶34;
Response ¶34. Jackson completed his CPV backtime for his 1999 sentence on April
23, 2017, and was paroled from his 2016 VOP sentence on October 26, 2019. Am.
Answer ¶¶35-36; Response ¶35.6
       On November 25, 2019, Jackson filed his Mandamus Petition with our Court.
Therein, he alleged that the Department had failed to properly calculate the terms on
his active state sentences and had consequently deprived him of the credit to which
he believed he was entitled for time served between September 1, 2016, and October
17, 2019. Mandamus Petition ¶¶1-15. Accordingly, Jackson requested that we issue
a writ of mandamus to compel the Department to award him credit for this time
period and apply it to those sentences. Id., Wherefore Clause.
       The Department reacted by both revisiting its treatment of Jackson’s 2015
sentence and answering the Mandamus Petition. On October 22, 2021, the
Department issued a new Sentence Status Summary, in which it recalculated the
starting date of his 2015 sentence as April 24, 2017, a marked departure from its
original calculation of October 17, 2019, while also determining that this sentence’s
minimum and maximum dates were, respectively, January 21, 2029, and January 21,
2045. Am. Answer ¶37, Ex. A; Response, Ex. A. The Department then submitted its
Amended Answer on December 8, 2021. Therein, it asserted, in relevant part, that
Jackson had served CPV backtime on his 1999 sentence between September 1, 2016,
and April 23, 2017, during which time he ceased receiving credit towards his 2015

       6
        Jackson did not respond to paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Department’s Amended Answer.
As the Department’s Amended Answer contained a notice to plead, the factual averments in those
paragraphs are deemed admitted. See Pa. R.Civ.P.1029(a); Edmond v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 651
A.2d 645, 647 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

                                              4
sentence, and only began serving his 2015 sentence after completing that backtime.
Am. Answer ¶¶14, 32-37. Jackson replied to the Amended Answer on June 14, 2022;
in his Response, Jackson agreed that the Department had given him proper credit for
the period that ran from September 1, 2016, through April 23, 2017, but maintained
that the Department had failed to do so for the time he had served between April 23,
2017, and October 16, 2019. Response ¶¶14, 32-35; id., Wherefore Clause. Jackson
then filed his Motion on July 7, 2022, after which the Department submitted its
Cross-Motion on July 20, 2022.
                                   II. Discussion
      The parties’ arguments are relatively simple. The Department contends that it
is entitled to judgment on the pleadings for three interlocking reasons. First, Jackson
no longer disputes that he received all sentence credit to which he was entitled from
September 1, 2016, to April 23, 2017; second, Jackson cannot receive credit towards
his 2015 sentence for April 23, 2017, because he was serving backtime on that date
for his 1999 sentence; and third, Jackson has been actively serving his 2015 sentence
from April 24, 2017, onwards, with all of that served time having been already
applied towards that sentence. Department’s Br. at 9-12. Jackson, by contrast,
maintains that the Department still owes him the entire amount of credit he originally
claimed in his Mandamus Petition, from September 1, 2016, and October 17, 2019.
Jackson’s Br. at 1-2.
      “When ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in our original
jurisdiction, we must view all of the opposing party’s allegations as true, and only
those facts that the opposing party has specifically admitted may be considered
against the opposing party.” Parish v. Horn, 768 A.2d 1214, 1215 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2001). In considering such a motion, “[w]e must consider only the pleadings

                                          5
themselves and any documents properly attached[,]” Casner v. Am. Fed’n of State,
Cnty. & Mun. Emps., 658 A.2d 865, 869 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), and may only grant it
“when there exists no genuine issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Id.
      As for the nature of Jackson’s claim itself, “[i]t is well settled that mandamus
is an extraordinary writ which lies to compel performance of a ministerial act or
mandatory duty where there is a clear legal right in the petitioner, a corresponding
duty in the respondent, and a want of any other appropriate and adequate remedy.”
Cooper v. City of Greensburg, 363 A.2d 813, 815 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976). “The purpose
of mandamus is not to establish legal rights but only to enforce those legal rights that
have already been established.” Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, Zoning
Hearing Bd., 32 A.3d 287, 290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). “Mandamus will lie only to
compel public officials to perform their duties in accordance with the law [when]
those duties are ministerial in character and not discretionary.” Rakus v. Robinson,
382 A.2d 770, 772 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (citing Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist. v. Dep’t
of Pub. Instruction, 244 A.2d 754 (Pa. 1968)). “Because the sentence imposed by a
trial court is a question of law that involves no discretion on the part of the
Department, mandamus will lie to compel the Department to properly compute a
prisoner’s sentence.” Com., ex rel. Powell v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 14 A.3d 912, 915
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
      Here, it is evident that Jackson has already received the lion’s share of the
time credit which he sought through his Mandamus Petition. In his Response,
Jackson “agreed” with the Department’s assertion that he had served CPV backtime
on his 1999 sentence between September 1, 2016, and April 23, 2017. See Am.
Answer ¶32; Response ¶32. That backtime could only be counted towards his 1999

                                           6
sentence, as Section 6138(a)(5)(i) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code)
mandates that an inmate complete CPV backtime prior to beginning service on a
new, state-level sentence. 61 Pa C.S. § 6138(a)(5)(i);7 Kerak v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. &
Parole, 153 A.3d 1134, 1138 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (citing 61 Pa C.S. § 6138(a)(5))
(“Section 6138(a)(5) of the . . . Parole Code provides that once a parolee is
recommitted as a [CPV], the original sentence and any new sentences must be served
consecutively rather than concurrently.”). There is thus no doubt that Jackson has
already received all the credit to which he was entitled for that period. Similarly, the
Department’s October 22, 2021 Sentence Status Summary reflects that it has already
recalculated the starting date of Jackson’s 2015 sentence, changing it from October
17, 2019, to April 24, 2017. See Am. Answer ¶37, Ex. A; Response, Ex. A. There is
no question that the Department has already applied credit for the time between those
two dates towards Jackson’s 2015 sentence, which was being served concurrently
with his shorter 2016 VOP sentence. See Am. Answer ¶¶34, 37, Ex. A; Response
¶34, Ex. A. Therefore, at minimum, Jackson lacks a clear right to the relief he seeks
as to sentence credit for the time he served between September 1, 2016, and April
23, 2017, and from April 24, 2017, through October 17, 2019.
       Even so, questions remain regarding credit for a single day served by Jackson.
The Department avers in its Answer that Jackson completed the CPV backtime for

       7
           Specifically, Section 6138(a)(5) of the Parole Code states, in relevant part:
                 (5) 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 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)(5).

                                                   7
his 1999 sentence on April 23, 2017, and then began serving his new sentences.
Answer ¶¶32-35. It is unclear, however, whether April 23, 2017, was properly
accounted for in this situation, as there is no proof that it was credited towards
Jackson’s 1999 sentence and the Department’s October 22, 2021 Sentence Status
Summary shows that Jackson did not begin serving his 2015 sentence until April 24,
2017. See Am. Answer, Ex. A; Response, Ex. A. Given this, as well as Jackson’s
denial of the Department’s averments regarding that date, we cannot say with
certainty at this juncture that he has received the sentence credit to which he is due
for April 23, 2017.
                                  III. Conclusion
      In accordance with the foregoing, we grant the Department’s Cross-Motion in
part, regarding Jackson’s request for mandamus relief that pertains to sentence credit
for time served from September 1, 2016, to April 23, 2017, and between April 24,
2017, and October 17, 2019, and deny the Cross-Motion in part, as to Jackson’s
request for mandamus relief regarding sentence credit for time served on April 23,
2017. In addition, we deny Jackson’s Motion, in full.

                                       __________________________________
                                       ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

                                          8
          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tyreek Jackson,                     :
                  Petitioner        :
                                    :
     v.                             : No. 650 M.D. 2019
                                    :
Pennsylvania Department             :
of Corrections,                     :
                 Respondent         :

                                 ORDER

     AND NOW, this 5th day of July, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED:
     1.    Respondent Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ (Department)
           Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Cross-Motion) is
           GRANTED IN PART, as to Petitioner Tyreek Jackson’s (Jackson)
           Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Mandamus Petition), regarding
           sentence credit for time served from September 1, 2016, to April 23,
           2017, and between April 24, 2017, and October 17, 2019;

     2.    The Department’s Cross-Motion is DENIED IN PART, as to the
           Mandamus Petition, regarding sentence credit for time served on April
           23, 2017; and

     3.    Jackson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, in full.

                                    __________________________________
                                    ELLEN CEISLER, Judge