Court Opinion

ID: 9948098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 15:11:51.031116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:05.270508
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Calvin Mitchell,                          :
                         Petitioner       :
                                          :
                   v.                     :   No. 240 M.D. 2020
                                          :   Submitted: February 6, 2024
Dept of Corrections,                      :
                         Respondent       :

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

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER                FILED: March 6, 2024

      Before this Court in its original jurisdiction is Calvin Mitchell’s (Mitchell),
pro se, Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings (Motion), and the
Department of Corrections’ (DOC) Cross-Application for Summary Relief (Cross-
Application).   Mitchell argues DOC miscalculated his sentences and that the
sentences imposed by Judge Steven R. Geroff were to run concurrently to sentences
imposed by Judge Carolyn E. Temin. DOC argues Judge Geroff ordered his
sentences to run consecutively to Judge Temin’s sentences. After review, because
there are material facts in dispute, we deny Mitchell’s Motion and likewise deny
DOC’s Cross-Application.
I.    BACKGROUND
      On March 20, 2020, Mitchell filed his Petition for Review (Petition)
challenging DOC’s calculation of his multiple sentences, which were imposed by
two different judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial
court). Our Court previously handled this matter on DOC’s Preliminary Objection
(PO) in the nature of a demurrer to Mitchell’s Petition. See Mitchell v. Dep’t. of
Corr. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 240 M.D. 2020, filed July 6, 2022) (Mitchell I). There, we
summarized the facts as follows.

      On March 20, 2020, Mitchell filed the Petition, in which he avers the
      following. On June 25, 1997, Mitchell was sentenced by Judge Geroff
      at CP-51-CR-0106351-1996 (CP 6351) to “10 to 20 years for robbery,
      10 to 20 years for [a]gg[ravated] [a]ssault, 5 to 10 years for [possessing
      instruments of a crime], and 2 ½ to 5 [years] for conspiracy” for an
      aggregate sentence of 27 ½ to 55 years’ incarceration (June 25
      Sentences). (Petition ¶¶ 3, 5.) When Judge Geroff sentenced Mitchell
      he “was very adamant about his [June 25 Sentences] running
      consecutive[ly].” (Id. ¶ 5.) Mitchell was not serving any other
      sentences at the time the June 25 Sentences were imposed. (Id. ¶ 6.)
      The June 25 Sentences are reflected as a “Remark” on Mitchell’s DC-
      16E Sentence Status Summary. (Id., Exhibit (Ex.) C.)

      Mitchell was subsequently sentenced, on July 3, 1997, by Judge
      “Temin at CP 0908 and CP 0908 Bill 2” to concurrent terms of 1 to 2
      years’ incarceration, which were to run “concurrently with any sentence
      now serving[]” [(July 3 Sentences).] (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) At the time Judge
      Temin sentenced Mitchell, he was serving the June 25 Sentences
      imposed by Judge Geroff at CP 6351. (Id. ¶ 5.)

      Mitchell filed a motion challenging the June 25 Sentences, after which
      Judge Geroff resentenced Mitchell at CP 6351 to serve the same
      aggregate 27 ½[-] to 55[-]year sentences on September 5, 1997
      (September 5 Resentences). (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. A at 8.) . . . . Mitchell filed
      grievances regarding DOC’s calculation of his sentences, which were
      denied.[] (Id. ¶¶ 7-14, Ex. A.) The orders reflecting Judge Geroff’s June
      25 Sentences, Judge Temin’s [July 3 S]entences, and Judge Geroff’s
      September 5 Resentences are not attached to the Petition. Instead,
      Mitchell attaches two DC-300B “Court Commitment Sheets” for Judge
      Temin’s [July 3 S]entences, and excerpts from his DC-16E – “Sentence
      Status Summary,” which lists Judge Temin’s [July 3 S]entences first
      and Judge Geroff’s September 5 Resentences second. (Id. Exs. B, C.)

                                          2
Mitchell I, slip op at 3-4. The Court overruled DOC’s PO because there was “a
genuine dispute of fact regarding the content and interpretation of Mitchell’s
sentencing orders[.]” Id. at 2. Accordingly, the Court ordered DOC to file an answer
to the Petition, and DOC filed an Answer and New Matter on July 27, 2022. DOC
attaches to its Answer and New Matter DC-300B documents for the June 25
Sentences, the July 3 Sentences, and the September 5 Resentences, DOC’s letter to
Judge Geroff inquiring about his September 5 Resentences, and Judge Geroff’s
response letter. In DOC’s letter to Judge Geroff, DOC inquired “[w]as it your
Honor’s intention to aggregate your sentence with Judge Temin’s or was your
sentence to stand alone as a total aggregate sentence of 27 years[,] 6 months to 55
years?” (Answer and New Matter, Ex. D.) In Judge Geroff’s response he states he
“ordered that all of [Mitchell’s] sentences be served consecutively to all other
sentences.” (Id., Ex. E.) Mitchell filed a reply to DOC’s Answer and New Matter
on August 15, 2022.
       On March 30, 2023, Mitchell filed the Motion.1 DOC filed the Cross-
Application on May 17, 2023.2 This Court ordered respective briefing.
II.    PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
       Mitchell first argues Judge Temin sentenced Mitchell under a plea agreement,
and Judge Temin’s sentence was “to run concurrent[.]” (Mitchell’s Brief (Br.) ¶ 5.)3
Mitchell contends Judge Geroff “has always been adamant about his sentences
running consecutive to total a 27 ½[-] to 55[-]year term, and in no record did he ever

       1
         Mitchell filed a “Motion for Final Judg[]ment” on February 6, 2023. On March 17, 2023,
this Court denied the Motion for Final Judgment and allowed Mitchell to file an application for
summary relief or other dispositive motion.
       2
         Mitchell filed a “Response to [DOC’s] Cross-Application for Summary Judg[]ment” on
June 21, 2023, wherein he makes many of the same points outlined in his Brief.
       3
         Mitchell’s Brief is written in numerical paragraphs.

                                              3
state [the September 5 Resentences were] to be consecutive to Judge Temin[’s July
3 S]entence[s.]” (Id. ¶ 7.) Mitchell explains “Judge Geroff has never in the
sentencing order or letter . . . stated that his sentence ran consecutively to [Judge
Temin’s July 3 Sentences,] which [were] imposed after Judge Geroff[’s] original
sentencing of June 25, 1997.” (Id. ¶ 13.) Mitchell lastly argues “[t]he [] delay of
this decision is harming [his] pursuit of freedom[ and] liberty[, ]prevents [him] from
gaining [] status to work outside, and prevents him from completing programs
needed for parole[,]” and he asks “that this Court direct [DOC] to run the sentences
. . . concurrently[.]” (Id. ¶¶ 15, 17.)
      DOC responds that it has demonstrated its right to relief is clear and there are
no disputed material issues of fact. (DOC’s Br. at 9.) DOC contends it “took
appropriate action to clarify Judge Geroff’s intent with respect to the sentence he
imposed on September 5, 1997.”            (Id. at 10.)     DOC argues Judge Geroff
“unequivocally expressed” in his response letter that he intended “for the sentence
he imposed [on September 5, 1997,] to run consecutively to all other sentences,
which would necessarily encompass the sentence imposed by Judge Temin.” (Id. at
11 (emphasis omitted).) DOC states Mitchell’s “interpretation of Judge Geroff’s
letter” that the September 5 Resentences are to run concurrently with the July 3
Sentences “is simply untenable” because “Mitchell was serving the sentence Judge
Temin had imposed approximately two months earlier” and “Judge Geroff’s order
and written correspondence, directing that his sentence was to be served
consecutively to all other sentences Mitchell was serving, necessarily included Judge
Temin’s sentence.” (Id. at 11-12.) DOC thus argues that Mitchell’s sentences were
accurately calculated to run consecutively. (Id. at 12.)

                                           4
III.   DISCUSSION
        Under Rule 1532(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, “[a]t
any time after the filing of a petition for review in an appellate or original jurisdiction
matter, the court may on application enter judgment if the right of the applicant
thereto is clear.” Pa.R.A.P. 1532(b). “Summary relief is similar to summary
judgment under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in that the requested
relief is only appropriate where there are no disputed issues of material fact and it is
clear that the applicant is entitled to the requested relief under the law.” Marcellus
Shale Coal. v. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 216 A.3d 448, 458 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). In
summary relief actions, the record is the same as the record for summary judgment,
which includes depositions, affidavits, pleadings, answers to interrogatories, and
reports of expert witnesses. Rivera v. Pa. State Police, 255 A.3d 677, 681 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2021).
       At the time of Mitchell’s sentences in 1997, Rule 1406 of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Criminal Procedure, which was subsequently renumbered Rule 705, was in
effect and provided that “[w]henever more than one sentence is imposed at the same
time on a defendant, or whenever a sentence is imposed on a defendant who is
sentenced for another offense, the judge shall state whether the sentences shall run
concurrently or consecutively.” Former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1406.4 Notably, it is “the text

       4
         A comment to Rule 705 explains that in 1996 the Rule was amended to eliminate the
presumption that sentences were to run concurrently unless otherwise stated by the judge and that
the rule now requires the judge to state whether the sentences are to run concurrently or
consecutively. Rule 705(B) states:

      When more than one sentence is imposed at the same time on a defendant, or when
      a sentence is imposed on a defendant who is sentenced for another offense, the
      judge shall state whether the sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. If
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                               5
of the sentencing order, and not the statements a trial court makes about a
defendant’s sentence, [that] is determinative of the court’s sentencing intentions and
the sentence imposed.” Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 A.3d 1219, 1226 (Pa. 2013)
(emphasis added).
       In a factually similar case, Taylor v. Department of Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth.,
No. 422 M.D. 2014, filed March 25, 2015),5 this Court analyzed whether DOC
correctly calculated the petitioner’s multiple sentences based on the trial court’s
sentencing orders and written correspondence from one of the sentencing judges.
The petitioner was sentenced to four to eight months in a state correctional institution
and five years’ reporting probation on April 13, 2006. Id., slip op. at 2. The
petitioner was arrested on May 20, 2007, and Judge Earl Trent sentenced him on
November 20, 2007, to three to six years in state prison. Id. On March 4, 2008,
Judge Leon W. Tucker revoked the petitioner’s probation and sentenced him to 2
concurrent terms of 11 months, 15 days to 23 months in county prison. Id. In Judge
Tucker’s sentencing order, he stated that the sentence “shall commence on March
[]4, 2008.” Id. As Judge Tucker’s March 4, 2008 sentencing order did not state
whether that sentence was to be consecutive or concurrent to Judge Trent’s
November 20, 2007 sentence, DOC twice sought clarification from Judge Tucker.
Judge Tucker responded that the March 4, 2008 sentence was to run consecutively
to Judge Trent’s November 20, 2007 sentence. However, this Court found that
because Judge Tucker’s sentencing order stated that the sentence “shall commence

       the sentence is to run concurrently, the sentence shall commence from the date of
       imposition unless otherwise ordered by the judge.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 705(B).
       5
         Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 126(b), Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), and
Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a), an
unreported opinion of this Court, while not binding, may be cited for its persuasive value.

                                              6
on March []4, 2008[,]” and Taylor was still serving the sentence imposed by Judge
Trent on March 4, 2008, “Judge Tucker’s statement indicates that, effective March
4, 2008, Taylor’s county sentence should run concurrently with his prior state
sentence.” Id. at 4-5. For support, the Court cited Rule 705(B) of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Criminal Procedure, Pa.R.Crim.P. 705(B), that “[i]f the sentence is to run
concurrently, the sentence shall commence from the date of imposition. . . .” Id. at
5. The Court further concluded “it appears that Judge Tucker’s statements in his . .
. letters that Taylor’s sentences were to run consecutively were not mere
clarifications of the March 4, 2008[] sentencing order but constituted a modification
of the sentencing order” in violation of the 30-day window under Section 5505 of
the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. Id.
      Here, Mitchell contends Judge Geroff’s September 5 Resentences were
ordered to run concurrent with Judge Temin’s July 3 Sentences, (Mitchell’s Br.
¶ 13), while DOC contends the September 5 Resentences were ordered to run
consecutive to the July 3 Sentences and Judge Geroff’s letter clarifies this intention,
(DOC’s Br. at 11-12). However, the relevant sentencing orders have not been
provided; only the relevant DC-300B documents are attached to DOC’s Answer and
New Matter. “[A]dministrative memos, such as [] DC[-]300B commitment forms,
do not have the same force and effect as court orders.” Everett v. Varner (Pa.
Cmwlth., No. 74 M.D. 2009, filed September 19, 2011), slip op. at 7. The language
of the trial court’s sentencing order controls. Borrin, 80 A.3d at 1226; see also
Com., ex rel. Powell v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 14 A.3d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). Unlike
in Taylor, we do not have the benefit of reviewing Mitchell’s sentencing orders, and
the DC-300B commitment forms that DOC attached to its Answer and New Matter
are not sufficient to resolve the disputed facts relating to whether the September 5

                                          7
Resentences are to run concurrent or consecutive with the July 3 Sentences. Everett,
slip op at 7. We similarly cannot conclude whether Judge Geroff’s letter to DOC
was a clarification or a modification of the sentencing order for the September 5
Resentences. Taylor, slip op. at 5; 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. Therefore, neither party has
shown they are entitled to summary relief as disputed facts exist as to whether the
September 5 Resentences were ordered to run consecutive or concurrent with the
July 3 Sentences. Accordingly, we deny Mitchell’s Motion and deny DOC’s Cross-
Application.

                                      __________________________________________
                                      RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

                                         8
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Calvin Mitchell,                        :
                        Petitioner      :
                                        :
                   v.                   :   No. 240 M.D. 2020
                                        :
Dept of Corrections,                    :
                        Respondent      :

                                     ORDER

      NOW, March 6, 2024, the Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings
filed by Calvin Mitchell is DENIED. The Cross-Application for Summary Relief
filed by the Department of Corrections is likewise DENIED.

                                      __________________________________________
                                      RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge