Court Opinion

ID: 9927246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 16:09:57.68602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:11.142396
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joshua Deandre Kelly,                         :
                 Petitioner                   :
                                              :    No. 426 C.D. 2022
              v.                              :
                                              :    Submitted: January 27, 2023
Pennsylvania Parole Board,                    :
                  Respondent                  :

BEFORE:       HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
              HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
              HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                        FILED: January 26, 2024

              Joshua Deandre Kelly (Petitioner) petitions for review of the April 15,
2022 decision and order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) denying his
challenge to the Board’s order that committed him as a convicted parole violator
(CPV) to serve 18 months’ backtime1 and recalculated his maximum sentence date
without award of credit for time spent at liberty on parole. Upon review, we affirm.
                             Facts and Procedural History
              Petitioner was found guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of the 39th
Judicial District, Franklin County branch (trial court) of fleeing or attempting to
elude a police officer, reckless endangerment and resisting arrest. On October 24,
2012, he was sentenced to serve an aggregate term of two years and three months to

       1
         “Backtime” is defined as “the unserved part of a prison sentence which a convict would
have been compelled to serve if the convict had not been paroled.” Section 61.1 of the Board’s
regulations, 37 Pa. Code § 61.1.
nine years of incarceration. Petitioner’s minimum release date was January 4, 2015,
with a maximum date of October 4, 2021.
             Petitioner was released on parole on January 5, 2015, after he executed
a statement detailing the conditions of his parole, including that he “refrain from
owning or possessing any firearms or other weapons[,]” and that he “SHALL NOT
POSSESS AMMUNITION UNDER ANY CONDITION OR FOR ANY
REASON.” (Certified Record (C.R.) at 9, 11) (emphasis original). Petitioner was
also advised that if he was “convicted of a crime while on parole/reparole, the Board
has the authority, after an appropriate hearing, to recommit [him] to serve the balance
of the sentence or sentences which [he was] serving when paroled/reparoled, with
no credit for time at liberty on parole.” (C.R. at 9) (emphasis added).
             On February 5, 2019, Petitioner was arrested on a new charge of
possession of a firearm by a convict in Harford County, Maryland. In that case,
sheriff’s deputies recovered a loaded semi-automatic pistol from Petitioner’s jacket
during a traffic stop of his motorcycle. On April 26, 2019, the Board issued an
interstate warrant for Petitioner’s arrest for the parole violation, to ensure that he was
returned to Pennsylvania custody after resolution of the new charge in Maryland.
             On July 23, 2019, Petitioner entered a guilty plea in the Circuit Court
of Harford County to the firearms offense. He was sentenced to a term of five years’
incarceration to be served “concurrent with any other outstanding or unserved
sentence.” (C.R. at 102.) Petitioner finished serving his Maryland sentence on June
8, 2021, and he was returned to Pennsylvania custody for the first time since his
January 2015 release.
             The Board held a parole revocation hearing on August 13, 2021, at
which Petitioner was represented by counsel. On October 7, 2021, the Board issued

                                            2
a Notice of Decision revoking Petitioner’s parole and recommitting him as a CPV
to serve 18 months’ backtime based on the Maryland firearms conviction (Decision).
The Board declined to award Petitioner credit for the time he spent at liberty on
parole, because he “committed a new offense involving possession of a weapon.”
(C.R. at 92.)     The Board entered an Order to Recommit, with a recomputed
maximum parole date of March 7, 2028.
              On November 1, 2021, the Board received Petitioner’s pro se
administrative appeal challenging its Decision. Petitioner raised several issues,
including that the Board failed to honor the terms of the Maryland order concerning
the concurrent nature of his sentence and that it erred in declining to credit him for
the time spent at liberty on parole.2 (C.R. at 99-100.) The Board issued a letter on
April 15, 2022, addressing Petitioner’s claims and affirming its Decision. In doing
so, the Board found that it properly exercised its discretion to deny Petitioner credit
for street time where his new conviction involved possession of a weapon. It also
noted that Petitioner was advised of this potential penalty when he was initially
released on parole by way of the contemporaneous document that he signed outlining
the conditions. As to the effect of the Maryland sentence, the Board explained:

              Based on the facts [of this case] and the Board’s decision
              to deny you credit for the time spent at liberty on parole
              based on your recommitment as a CPV [] this means that
              you owed 2464 days remaining on your original sentence
              based on the recommitment. No pre-sentence credit was
              awarded as there is no indication the Board held you solely
              on its warrant prior to sentencing. This means you still
              owed 2464 days on your original sentence based on the
              recommitment. Because you were sentenced to a new

       “The time a parolee spends at liberty on parole is also referred to as ‘street time.’”
       2

Plummer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 216 A.3d 1207, 1209 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2019).
                                             3
               carceral term in another jurisdiction, the Prisons and
               Parole Code provides that you must serve your original
               sentence first. 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(5). However, that
               provision is contingent on the other entity surrendering
               you to Pennsylvania custody. Because that did not occur
               until June 8, 2021, you therefore are not entitled to credit
               on your original sentence until that date despite the judge
               ordering your sentence to be served concurrently. The
               Board is not authorized to run these sentences
               concurrently. Thus, adding 2464 days to June 8, 2021
               yields a recalculated maximum date of March 7, 2028.
(C.R. at 128) (case citation omitted; emphasis in original). This counseled appeal
followed.
                                           Discussion
               On appeal,3 Petitioner argues that the Board erred in failing to honor
the terms of his Maryland sentence in recommitting him to serve 18 months of
backtime on his original sentence. He also challenges the Board’s decision to deny
credit for time spent at liberty on parole.4
                       Credit for Time Served on Maryland Sentence
               In his first issue, Petitioner contests the Board’s decision not to
implement the terms of his Maryland sentence, which directed that it run “concurrent
with any other outstanding or unserved sentence.” (Petitioner’s Br., at 11-13.)
Petitioner maintains that, because of this directive, the Board was required to grant

       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.” Brown v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 184
A.3d 1021, 1023 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).

       4
         While Petitioner raised a plethora of issues in his pro se filings before the Board, his
counsel abandons several of these claims as meritless in his brief to this Court. (Petitioner’s Br.,
at 11.)
                                                 4
him credit for the time he served on his Maryland sentence before he was returned
to Pennsylvania custody.
                Section 6138(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code5 governs the order in
which new sentences and backtime are served and provides that if a “parolee is
sentenced to serve a new term of total confinement by a Federal court or by a court
of another jurisdiction because of a verdict or plea under paragraph (1), the parolee
shall serve the balance of the original term before serving the new term.” 61 Pa.
C.S. § 6138(a)(5.1).6 Therefore, “once a parolee is recommitted as a convicted
parole violator, the original sentence and any new sentences must be served
consecutively rather than concurrently.” Kerak v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation
& Parole, 153 A.3d 1134, 1138 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). “A sentencing judge has no
authority to order otherwise.” Id.
                Additionally, with respect to Petitioner’s specific argument that the
Board was required to honor the terms of his Maryland sentence, it is “well settled
[] that one sentencing jurisdiction cannot tell another sentencing jurisdiction that
time spent in its state prison will count against a sentence imposed by that other
state.” Santiago v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 937 A.2d 610, 614
n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (citing Vance v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole, 741 A.2d 838 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)). Accordingly, the Board was under no
obligation to implement the terms of the Maryland order, especially given the
conflict with controlling Pennsylvania law on this issue. Based on the foregoing, we

       5
           61 Pa. C.S. §§ 101–3316.

       6
            Section 6138(a)(1) states: “The board may, at its discretion, revoke the parole of a paroled
offender if the offender, during the period of parole or while delinquent on parole, commits a crime
punishable by imprisonment, for which the offender is convicted or found guilty by a judge or jury
. . . in a court of record.” Id.
                                                   5
conclude that the Board did not err in complying with the mandate of Section
6138(a), notwithstanding the Maryland court’s order to the contrary.
                      Credit for Time Spent at Liberty on Parole
               Next, Petitioner argues that the Board abused its discretion by failing
to award him credit for the time he spent at liberty on parole. (Petitioner’s Br., at
17-18.) He contends that, because his new criminal offense of possession of a
firearm was not an act of violence as defined by Section 9714(g) of the Sentencing
Code,7 and was therefore not automatically excludible from award of street time, he
should have received credit for that time.
               Under Section 6138 of the Prisons and Parole Code, a recommitted
CPV must generally serve the remainder of his sentence that he had not yet served
at the time of his parole, without credit for street time. 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(a)(2).
However, Section 6138 “unambiguously grants the Board discretion to award credit
to a CPV recommitted to serve the remainder of his sentence,” subject to certain
enumerated exceptions. Plummer, 216 A.3d at 1211. That provision reads in
relevant part as follows:

               (2.1) The board may, in its discretion, award credit to an
               offender recommitted under paragraph (2) 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 or a
               crime listed under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H (relating to
               registration of sexual offenders) or I (relating to continued
               registration of sexual offenders).

       7
         This Section lists several violent offenses meeting the definition of “crime of violence”
including murder of the third degree, voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, rape,
kidnapping, and robbery. 42 Pa C.S. § 9714(g).
                                                6
61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(2.1)(i) (emphasis added; footnotes omitted).
                 When exercising its discretion to deny credit for street time, the Board
must provide a contemporaneous statement explaining the basis for its decision.
Pittman v. Pennsylvania. Board of Probation & Parole, 159 A.3d 466, 475 (Pa.
2017). The Board’s explanation does not have to be extensive, and a single sentence
is sufficient under most circumstances. Id. at 475 n.12. When rendering a credit
determination, “the Board’s statement of reasons should be informed by aggravating
and mitigating circumstances and account for the parolee’s individual
circumstances.” Plummer, 216 A.3d at 1212.
                 Here, although Petitioner did not commit a crime of violence as defined
by the Sentencing Code8 and therefore was not automatically excluded from the
award of street time, the Board retained discretion as to whether it was appropriate
to grant credit for that time. The Board declined to award Petitioner credit because
his new conviction for the crime he committed while he was on parole involved
possession of a weapon. As outlined above, the conditions of his parole, of which
he was advised and to which he agreed upon his release from incarceration, expressly
barred him from possessing a firearm and/or any ammunition. When Petitioner was
arrested in Maryland for the new offense, both of these prohibited items were found
on his person. Petitioner was also informed at the time of his parole that any
recommitment because of a new offense could result in no credit awarded for street
time.
                 Based on the foregoing, we find that the Board appropriately applied
the Prisons and Parole Code and followed Pittman by providing a reasonable,

        8
            42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9701-9799.75.
                                             7
record-based rationale for its decision to deny Petitioner credit for street time.
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s Order.

                                     __________________________________
                                     PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

                                        8
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joshua Deandre Kelly,                :
                 Petitioner          :
                                     :   No. 426 C.D. 2022
           v.                        :
                                     :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,           :
                  Respondent         :

                                  ORDER

           AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2024, the Order of the
Pennsylvania Parole Board dated April 15, 2022 is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                   __________________________________
                                   PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge