Court Opinion

ID: 9928301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 15:10:30.199669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:36.847529
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joan Manuel Mejia,                              :
                 Petitioner                     :
                                                :    No. 590 C.D. 2022
                v.                              :
                                                :    Submitted: May 5, 2023
Pennsylvania Parole Board,                      :
                  Respondent                    :

BEFORE:         HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
                HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
                HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                           FILED: January 31, 2024

                Joan Manuel Mejia (Petitioner) petitions for review of the May 18, 2022
order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board), which affirmed its January 12, 2022
decision to recommit Petitioner as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to serve six
months’ backtime. Kent D. Watkins, Esquire (Counsel), Petitioner’s court-appointed
counsel, has filed an Application to Withdraw as Counsel (Application) along with a
Turner1 letter on the basis that the appeal lacks merit. Upon review, we affirm the
Board’s decision and grant Counsel’s Application.

                              I. Facts and Procedural History
                On April 5, 2016, Petitioner2 was sentenced to three years and six months
to ten years’ incarceration for drug manufacture/sale/delivery and six months to one

       1
           See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988).

       2
              Petitioner     was     released    on       parole       on     May       30,   2023.
https://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov/#/ParoleeSearchResults, last visited January 30, 2024.
year of incarceration for possession of paraphernalia. (Certified Record (C.R.) at 1.)
Petitioner’s respective minimum and maximum dates were January 16, 2018 and
January 16, 2025. Id. at 2. On August 30, 2019, the Board authorized Petitioner’s
release on parole, and he was released on September 21, 2019. Id. at 6-10.
              On December 6, 2019, the Board issued a warrant to commit and detain,
following Petitioner’s arrest on the same date in Lackawanna County on charges of
use/possession of drug paraphernalia. Id. at 14, 16. On January 23, 2020, the Board
recorded a decision to detain Petitioner pending disposition of the criminal charges. Id.
at 15.
              On November 10, 2021, Petitioner was sentenced to be incarcerated for
not less than 1,801 days at the county correctional facility with credit for time served.
Id. at 16. On November 17, 2021, the Board issued a notice of charges and hearing.
Id. at 16-19. That same date, Petitioner signed a waiver of revocation hearing and
counsel admission form, as well as a waiver of panel hearing. Id. On January 12, 2022,
the Board recorded a decision recommitting Petitioner as a CPV to serve six months’
backtime3 and awarding him credit for the time spent at liberty on parole. Id. at 55-56.
The awarded credit was calculated to be 76 days, the number of days between
September 21, 2019, the date Petitioner was released on parole and December 6, 2019,
the date Petitioner was arrested. Id. at 53.
              On February 14, 2022, the Board received an administrative remedies
form from Petitioner challenging the January 12, 2022 Board’s order, asserting that the

         3
          The Board recorded an original maximum date of January 16, 2015, and a
parole/reparole/delinquency/Board warrant date of September 21, 2019. The Board awarded credit
of 76 days, backtime owed of 1,868 days. The custody return day was November 10, 2021 and the
new maximum date is December 22, 2026.

                                               2
Board failed to give Petitioner credit for all time served under the Board’s warrant or
while incarcerated on a parole violation. Id. 60.
             The Board issued a determination, dated May 18, 2022, stating in part as
follows:
             The Board paroled [Petitioner] from a state correctional
             institution [(SCI)] on September 21, 2019[,] with a maximum
             date of January 16, 2025. This left [Petitioner] with 1944
             days remaining on his original sentence the day he was
             released. [T]he Board applied credit for 76 days from
             September 21, 2019, the day he was released, to December
             6, 2019, the day the Board’s detainer was lodged. Subtracting
             76 days from 1944 days left [Petitioner] with 1868 days
             remaining on his original sentence based on the
             recommitment.
             On December 6, 2019, . . . [Petitioner was arrested] for new
             criminal charges, and there is no indication that he posted
             bail. . .. On November 10, 2021, [Petitioner] was sentenced
             in Lackawanna County to time served. [B]ecause [Petitioner]
             did not post bail on the new criminal charges, he therefore is
             not entitled to any credit toward his original sentence
             following his arrest on December 6, 2019[,] as the Board did
             not hold him solely on its detainer from that date. Gaito v.
             Pa. Board of Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa.
             1980). Such credit cannot be applied to his original sentence,
             and thus, [Petitioner] still owed 1868 days on his original
             sentence based on the recommitment. Because [Petitioner]
             was sentenced to time served, he therefore became available
             to commence service of his original sentence on the
             sentencing date of November 10, 2021. Adding 1868 days to
             November 10, 2021[,] yields a recalculated maximum date
             of December 22, 2026. Accordingly, the Board decision
             recorded January 12, 2022 (mailed 1/21/2022) is
             AFFIRMED.
(C.R. at 63-64.)
             On June 15, 2022, Petitioner’s Counsel filed a petition for review with this
Court. Thereafter, Counsel filed the Application and Turner letter based on his belief
that Petitioner’s appeal is without merit.

                                             3
               This matter is now before us for disposition.
                                             II. Issues
               The issue on appeal4 is whether the Board failed to give Petitioner credit
for all time served exclusively on the Board’s warrant or while incarcerated.5
                                         III. Discussion
               A. Turner Letter
               When court-appointed counsel concludes that a petitioner’s appeal is
meritless, counsel may withdraw if counsel: (1) notifies the petitioner of the request to
withdraw; (2) furnishes the petitioner with a copy of a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), or a no-merit letter satisfying the requirements of
Turner; and (3) advises the petitioner of his right to retain new counsel or submit a
brief on his own behalf. Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole,
77 A.3d 66, 69 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). Once appointed counsel has complied with the
technical requirements for a withdrawal, we independently review the merits of the
petitioner’s claims. Id. at 70.
               Upon review, Counsel’s letter satisfies the technical requirements of
Turner. The letter sets forth the procedural history of the case, reflecting his review of
the record. Counsel states that he conducted a conscientious and thorough review of
the record, applicable statutes, and case law. He sets forth the issue Petitioner raised
in his administrative remedies form and petition for review. Counsel provides a

       4
          Our scope 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
          Petitioner did not file a brief or give a detailed explanation of the issue on appeal in the
administrative relief form. Counsel’s Turner letter asserts that Petitioner was under the impression
that his pleas carried a maximum sentence of one year and that any time beyond one year would be
credited to his original sentence. See Counsel’s Turner Letter.

                                                  4
thorough analysis of why the case lacks merit and cites applicable regulations and case
law in support. Based on his review, Counsel concludes that Petitioner’s appeal to this
Court is without merit, and he requests permission to withdraw.
               Counsel provided Petitioner with a copy of the Turner letter and his
request to withdraw. He also advised Petitioner of his right to retain new counsel or
proceed pro se. As we are satisfied that Counsel has discharged his responsibility in
complying with the technical requirements to withdraw from representation, we shall
conduct an independent review to determine whether Petitioner’s petition for review
lacks merit.
               B. Independent Review of the Merits
               Next, we turn to Petitioner’s request that this Court review the Board’s
May 18, 2022 decision to determine if he was denied credit towards his original
sentence.
               Here, the Board determined that at the time Petitioner was paroled from
the SCI, he had 1,944 days remaining on his original sentence. Id. at 63. In its
discretion, the Board awarded Petitioner 76 days’ credit for his time spent at liberty on
parole pursuant to Section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Code),6 61 Pa.
C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1). (C.R. at 63.) In other words, the Board applied 76 days’ credit
from September 21, 2019, the day Petitioner was released on parole, to December 6,
2019, the day he was arrested, and the Board’s detainer was lodged. The Board cited
Gaito and determined that although Petitioner was arrested on December 6, 2019, he
did not post bail and, therefore, he was not entitled to any credit toward his original
sentence following his arrest. (C.R. at 64.) The Board determined that Petitioner
became available to serve his original sentence on November 10, 2021, his sentencing

      6
          61 Pa. C.S. §§ 101–3316.

                                            5
date in Lackawanna County on his new charges. Id. The Board then added 1,868 days
left on the original sentence to November 10, 2021, which then yielded Petitioner’s
new maximum date of December 22, 2026. Id. at 64.
             Under Gaito, if a CPV satisfies bail requirements prior to sentencing and
is incarcerated solely on the Board’s detainer, this period of incarceration is credited to
his original sentence. 412 A.2d at 571. However, when bail is not posted, the time
incarcerated on both the new criminal charges and the Board’s detainer must be applied
to the new sentence. Id. After his arrest on December 6, 2019, Petitioner was
incarcerated in Lackawanna County on both the Board’s warrant and his new charges
until he was sentenced on November 10, 2021. At no point during this confinement
was Petitioner held exclusively on the Board’s warrant. This means that days served
from December 6, 2019 to November 10, 2021 must be credited towards his new
sentence.
             Thus, the Board properly determined that Petitioner became available to
serve his original sentence on November 10, 2021, the date he was sentenced in
Lackawanna County on his new charges. Considering the 76 days Petitioner was
credited for time spent at liberty on parole, he had 1,868 days remaining on his original
sentence. Adding 1,868 days to Petitioner’s availability date yields a recalculated
maximum date of December 22, 2026. Therefore, we conclude the Board’s calculation
is correct and Petitioner’s appeal is without merit.
                                     IV. Conclusion
             Upon review, we agree with Counsel that Petitioner’s claim is without
merit. Accordingly, we grant Counsel’s Application and affirm the Board’s decision.

                                             ________________________________
                                             PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

                                            6
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joan Manuel Mejia,                   :
                 Petitioner          :
                                     :    No. 590 C.D. 2022
           v.                        :
                                     :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,           :
                  Respondent         :

                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2024, the May 18, 2022 order of
the Pennsylvania Parole Board is hereby AFFIRMED and the Application to
Withdraw as Counsel filed by Attorney Kent D. Watkins is hereby GRANTED.

                                         ________________________________
                                         PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge