Court Opinion

ID: 9911581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 15:10:15.252614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:31.572967
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Samuel Jaquel Hill,                     :
                  Petitioner            :
                                        :
            v.                          :
                                        :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,              :   No. 134 C.D. 2023
                  Respondent            :   Submitted: November 9, 2023

BEFORE:     HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
            HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
            HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                               FILED: December 20, 2023

            Samuel Jaquel Hill (Hill), through counsel, petitions for review of the
January 27, 2023 order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) denying his
administrative challenge to the computation of his parole violation maximum date.
Upon review, we vacate the Board’s order and remand this matter to the Board for
further proceedings.

                                 I. Background
            Hill was released on parole on December 1, 2014. Certified Record
(C.R.) at 7. Several years later, Hill was arrested and convicted of a drug-related
crime. Id. at 22, 27, 29, 35, 44. Hill was eventually re-paroled. Id. at 128. In
October 2019, Hill incurred criminal charges stemming from the unlawful
possession of a firearm in Berks County. Id. at 66-70. On November 14, 2019, bail
was set, which Hill did not post. Id. at 122. On August 26, 2021, Hill entered a
guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to 11.5 to 23 months’
imprisonment. Id. at 112, 116-17 & 122. The following month, Hill was released
on parole. C.R. at 127. In January 2022, the Board recommitted Hill as a convicted
parole violator, denying him credit for time spent at liberty on parole and
establishing a parole violation maximum date of August 19, 2028. Id. at 131-32.
                In February 2022, Hill submitted an administrative remedies form
challenging the Board’s allocation of pre-sentence confinement credit and the
Board’s denial of credit for time spent at liberty on parole. C.R. at 134. On January
27, 2023, the Board denied Hill’s challenge,1 explaining:

                The Prisons and Parole Code[ (Parole Code), 61 Pa.C.S.
                §§ 101-7301,] provides that convicted parole violators
                who are paroled from a state correctional institution and
                then receive a county sentence of confinement on their
                new charges will not become available to commence
                service of the original sentence until parole from, or
                completion of the county sentence.[2] In this case[,]

       1
         The Board stated that it deemed Hill’s administrative remedies form a petition for
administrative review from its January 2022 decision. C.R. at 139.

       2
           The Board presumably references Section 6138(a)(5) of the Parole Code, which provides:

                (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.

                                                   2
               September 8, 2021 is his effective date of return because
               that is when he was paroled from his Berks County
               conviction. Adding 2537 days to that date yields a new
               maximum date of August 19, 2028.

C.R. at 140.
               Hill petitioned this Court for review.

                                             II. Issues
               Before this Court,3 Hill argues that the Board erroneously computed his
parole violation maximum date by applying 651 days of pre-sentence confinement
credit4 to his new county sentence in contravention of a plea agreement stipulating
that the Board would credit only 367 days against the new sentence, with the
remaining 284 days applied to his original sentence. Hill’s Br. at 13. Hill asserts
that the Board should have adhered to the terms of the plea agreement, because the
stipulation was “accepted and documented in the sentencing order,” he provided
testimony under oath regarding the terms thereof at the parole revocation hearing,

               (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).

       3
         Our scope of review of a decision of the Board denying administrative relief is limited to
determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, an error of
law was committed or constitutional rights have been violated. Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. &
Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

       4
         Hill identifies the disputed 651-day period as ranging from November 14, 2019, when
bail was set in Berks County, to August 26, 2021, the date of sentencing. Hill’s Br. at 9; see also
C.R. at 122.
                                                   3
and the Board did not challenge this testimony. Id. at 22. Further, Hill maintains
that the plea agreement does not violate the Parole Code, as that statute “does not
dictate the allocation of confinement credit.” Id. at 23. Thus, Hill requests that this
Court remand the matter to the Board to recompute his parole violation maximum
date in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. See id. at 26.
               The Board counters that it correctly allocated Hill’s backtime and
confinement credit. Board’s Br. at 7-10. The Board contends that “[w]hile Hill may
. . . have entered a plea deal that included 367 days of confinement time at his new
docket, . . . [r]eallocating credit based on Hill’s belief that he thought more credit
would be going to his backtime at the time of sentencing at his new charges would
necessarily contradict the well-established rulings in Gaito [v. Pennsylvania Board
of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980),] and Smith [v. Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole, 171 A.3d 759 (Pa. 2017)].” Id. at 9-10. Further,
the Board maintains that “[u]nlike the facts in Feilke [v. Pennsylvania Board of
Proation & Parole, 648 A.2d 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)], here we have a clear record
of the negotiated plea and the intention of the court is not in dispute, as the sentencing
order speaks for itself.” Id. at 10. Thus, the Board maintains that “Hill is not entitled
to additional credit which would necessarily contradict long established caselaw
simply because he believed he was getting a better deal at his new conviction.” Id.
at 10.5

         The Board further asserts that this Court should deem meritless Hill’s argument that the
          5

Board failed to provide, contemporaneously to its decision to recommit, adequate reasons for
denying him credit for time at liberty on parole. Board’s Br. at 11-12. However, Hill stated in his
appellate brief that “[h]aving had an opportunity to review the previously unavailable hearing
examiner’s report, [he] withdraws his issue that the decision to forfeit street time was not made
contemporaneous with that report.” Hill’s Br. at 6.

                                                4
                                 III. Discussion
            Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 590(B) provides, in pertinent
part:

            (1) At any time prior to the verdict, when counsel for both
            sides have arrived at a plea agreement, they shall state on
            the record in open court, in the presence of the defendant,
            the terms of the agreement, unless the judge orders, for
            good cause shown and with the consent of the defendant,
            counsel for the defendant, and the attorney for the
            Commonwealth, that specific conditions in the agreement
            be placed on the record in camera and the record sealed.

            (2) The judge shall conduct a separate inquiry of the
            defendant on the record to determine whether the
            defendant understands and voluntarily accepts the terms of
            the plea agreement on which the guilty plea or plea of nolo
            contendere is based.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(B)(1), (2). Our Supreme Court has explained:

            While it is true that the practice of plea bargaining is
            looked upon with favor, the integrity of our judicial
            process demands that certain safeguards be stringently
            adhered to so that the resultant plea as entered by a
            defendant and accepted by the trial court will always be
            one made voluntarily and knowingly, with a full
            understanding of the consequences to follow.

Commonwealth v. Zuber, 353 A.2d 441, 443 (Pa. 1976) (citations omitted).
            In Feilke, a parolee (Feilke) posted bail following his arrest on new
criminal charges. 648 A.2d at 122. The original maximum term on Feilke’s sentence
thereafter expired, and he was released from custody. Id. Several months later,
Feilke was arrested in South Carolina and was subsequently convicted and sentenced

                                        5
on the new criminal charges. Id. Feilke was then returned to Pennsylvania, where
he pled guilty to the criminal charges incurred while on parole, and his bail was
revoked. Id. Soon after, Feilke was returned to South Carolina. Id.
             The Board denied Feilke credit against his subsequent Pennsylvania
carceral sentence for a 13.5-month period of pre-sentence confinement, as he was
either confined on a sentence in another state, had posted bail on the Pennsylvania
charge, or remained in out-of-state custody. Feilke, 648 A.2d at 122. Feilke
challenged this denial as violative of an alleged plea bargain between Feilke and the
Commonwealth, which fixed the date on which service of the subsequent
Pennsylvania sentence would commence. Id. at 122.
             Before this Court, Feilke argued that, as a matter of public policy, the
Board should not be permitted to alter plea agreements between defendants and
assistant district attorneys. Id. at 123. We acknowledged that “the Board and not
the sentencing court must determine how custody credit shall be applied when a
sentence is imposed for a crime committed during the period a defendant is on
parole.” Id. at 123. However, we reasoned:

             [T]he Board’s records contain a reference to the negotiated
             sentence but do not reflect the full terms of the plea
             bargain between Feilke and the Commonwealth, whether
             the plea bargain was stated in open court and is contained
             on the record of the sentencing proceedings, and whether
             all terms of the bargain were accepted by the sentencing
             judge . . . . Since the record is incomplete on this aspect
             of the case, a remand to the Board is required to determine
             the exact terms of the plea bargain, whether it is contained
             on the record, and whether the order of the sentencing
             court must be honored and Feilke given the benefit of his
             plea bargain. For this reason, the Board’s order is vacated
             and this case is remanded to the Board.

                                          6
Feilke, 648 A.2d at 123-24.
                Here, the August 26, 2021 sentencing order states that “[p]er
stipulation, it is ordered that [Hill] is to receive credit of 367 days[’] time served[.]”
C.R. at 116. Hill testified at the November 29, 2021 parole revocation hearing that
pursuant to his “negotiated plea,” 367 days of time spent in pre-sentence
confinement would be applied against his “new sentence,” with the remaining time
credited as “backtime” against his original sentence. Id. at 83-84. However, we
disagree with the Board’s assertion that the record concerning the plea agreement is
clear. Rather, as in Feilke, “the full terms of the plea bargain . . . , whether the plea
bargain was stated in open court and is contained on the record of the sentencing
proceedings, and whether all terms of the bargain were accepted by the sentencing
judge” is not evident from the record. Feilke, 648 A.2d at 123-24.
                Accordingly, in accordance with Feilke, we vacate the Board’s January
27, 2023 order and remand the matter to the Board “to determine the exact terms of
the plea bargain, whether it is contained on the record, and whether the order of the
sentencing court must be honored and [Hill] given the benefit of his plea bargain.”
648 A.2d at 124.

                                    IV. Conclusion
                For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Board’s January 27, 2023
order and remand this matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

                                         ___________________________________
                                         CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

                                            7
           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Samuel Jaquel Hill,                         :
                  Petitioner                :
                                            :
            v.                              :
                                            :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,                  :   No. 134 C.D. 2023
                  Respondent                :

                                    ORDER

            AND NOW, this 20th day of December 2023, the January 27, 2023
order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) is VACATED, and this matter is
remanded to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with the foregoing
opinion.
            Jurisdiction is relinquished.

                                            _________________________________
                                            CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge