Court Opinion

ID: 9946792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 15:21:45.911324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:42.846803
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Giovanni Soto,                     :
                        Petitioner :
                                   :
            v.                     :          No. 98 C.D. 2023
                                   :          Submitted: November 6, 2023
Pennsylvania Parole Board,         :
                        Respondent :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
             HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
             HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT                       FILED: March 1, 2024

             Giovanni Soto petitions for review of an adjudication of the
Pennsylvania Parole Board (Parole Board) denying his request for administrative
relief from its decision recommitting him as a convicted parole violator. On appeal,
Soto argues that the Parole Board’s stated reasons for awarding partial credit for his
time at liberty on parole were arbitrary. For the reasons to follow, we affirm the
Parole Board.
             The relevant facts are not in dispute. Soto is currently incarcerated at
the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy. He is serving a 5- to 10-year sentence
of incarceration for drug-related offenses and possession of a firearm, with a
maximum sentence date of July 11, 2023.
             On July 11, 2018, Soto was paroled to an approved home plan. While
on parole, on July 20, 2021, Soto was arrested by the Exeter Township Police
Department on new criminal charges. He was charged with: (1) manufacture,
delivery, or possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or
deliver; (2) intentional possession of a controlled substance by a person not
registered; (3) marijuana – small amount personal use; (4) use/possession of drug
paraphernalia; (5) operating a vehicle while driver’s license suspended/revoked; (6)
operating unregistered vehicle; and (7) no certificate of title for vehicle. Certified
Record at 64 (C.R. __). Soto did not post bail; therefore, he remained detained on
the new criminal charges. On May 3, 2022, Soto pled guilty to manufacture,
delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance.
He was sentenced to 5 to 10 years of incarceration.
             On July 11, 2022, the Parole Board issued a Notice of Charges and
Hearing to Soto as a result of his conviction on May 3, 2022. A revocation hearing
was conducted on July 27, 2022. At the hearing, Soto, who was represented by
counsel, admitted the new conviction. As to his adjustment while on parole, Soto
testified that he initially got a job with a trash company, working six days a week.
Hearing Transcript at 10 (H.T. __); C.R. 37. He worked there for six to eight months.
While working as a trash hauler, he taught himself welding. H.T. 11; C.R. 38.
Subsequently, he got a job welding aluminum, working 40 hours a week. He worked
there for six months, before getting another welding job that paid more. However,
he was laid off from that job after he injured his welding hand. While on parole, he
was enrolled in a drug and alcohol program.
             On August 16, 2022, the Parole Board recommitted Soto as a convicted
parole violator to serve 12 months’ backtime. It explained its reasons for awarding
Soto partial credit for his time spent at liberty on parole as follows:
             -The offender committed a new conviction that is the same or
             similar to the original offense thereby warranting denial of credit
             for time at liberty on parole.
             -The offender demonstrated marginal overall adjustment on
             supervision.

                                           2
               -The offender received a new sentence of 5 to 10 years on the
               new conviction to be served consecutive to the current sentence.

C.R. 76. The Parole Board calculated Soto’s new maximum sentence date as March
9, 2027.
               Soto appealed. On the administrative remedies form, Soto stated that
the Parole Board abused its discretion in forfeiting his street time.
               By decision mailed January 12, 2023, the Parole Board denied Soto’s
request for administrative relief. It explained that the decision whether to grant or
deny a convicted parole violator credit for time at liberty on parole is purely a matter
of discretion. Under Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 159
A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017), the Parole Board must articulate the basis for its decision to
grant or deny a convicted parole violator credit for time spent at liberty on parole.
The Parole Board did so in its decision, i.e., stating that his new conviction for a
drug offense was the very same offense for which he had been incarcerated before
parole. Soto petitioned for this Court’s review.
               On appeal,1 Soto argues that the Parole Board abused its discretion by
not awarding him full credit for his time spent at liberty on parole before his
recommitment. He contends that the Parole Board’s stated reasons for its decision
do not explain its award of partial credit. As such, the Parole Board’s decision was
arbitrary. Soto seeks a remand directing the Board to explain its rationale for
limiting its award of credit to 154 days.

1
  This Court’s review determines whether the Parole Board’s adjudication is supported by
substantial evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, or whether constitutional rights
have been violated. Moroz v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 660 A.2d 131, 132
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). When presented with a question of law, our standard of review is de novo,
and our scope of review is plenary. Pittman, 159 A.3d at 473. Where the law grants the Parole
Board discretion, we review for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 474.

                                                3
              The Parole Board responds that it provided a sufficient explanation for
the exercise of its discretion. It denied full credit for time spent at liberty on parole
because Soto’s new conviction was the same or similar to his original offense. That
is a sufficient reason and supported by the record. See Colon-Vega v. Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2496 C.D. 2015, filed August 26,
2016) (unreported)2 (two new convictions while on parole for the same offense was
sufficient reason to deny credit for time spent at liberty on parole). Regarding Soto’s
contention that credit for 154 days was arbitrary, the Parole Board responds that its
decision to limit credit was based upon his overall adjustment on parole as marginal,
and, further, his conviction of a new crime while on parole. The Parole Board argues
this explanation is sufficient and not arbitrary.
              Section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code)
vests the Parole Board with discretion to grant a convicted parole violator credit for
time spent at liberty on parole. This provision states, in relevant part:
              (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).
                      (ii) The offender was recommitted under section 6143
                      (relating to early parole of offenders subject to Federal
                      removal order).

2
  An unreported panel decision of this Court, “issued after January 15, 2008,” may be cited “for
its persuasive value[.]” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal Operating
Procedures, 210 Pa. Code §69.414(a).

                                               4
61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2.1). The Parole Board can grant a convicted parole violator
partial or full credit for the time spent at liberty on parole. Penjuke v. Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole, 203 A.3d 401, 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). In Pittman,
159 A.3d at 475, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that if the Parole Board
exercises its discretion and denies credit, it “must provide a contemporaneous
statement explaining its reason for denying a [convicted parole violator] credit for
time spent at liberty on parole.” The Parole Board’s statement need not “be
extensive and a single sentence explanation is likely sufficient in most instances.”
Id. at 475 n.12.
             Because Soto’s new convictions were not for a violent or sexual crime
and he was not recommitted under Section 6143 of the Parole Code, the Parole Board
had discretion to grant or deny Soto credit for his time spent at liberty on parole. 61
Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2.1). The Parole Board exercised its discretion to award Soto
partial credit of 154 days and not for the remainder of the time he spent at liberty on
parole. A decision to award an inmate credit for time spent at liberty on parole does
not mean it must award full credit for all time at liberty on parole. Clark v.
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 509 C.D. 2019,
filed March 17, 2021) (unreported), slip op. at 10. The Parole Board also has
discretion to award partial credit.
             This Court has found single-sentence explanations given by the Parole
Board for its decision to deny credit for time spent at liberty on parole sufficient to
meet the Pittman standard. See, e.g., Tres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 828 C.D. 2018, filed June 3, 2019) (unreported) (Parole
Board’s stated reason, “arrested for a firearms charge,” satisfied Pittman standard);
Lawrence v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1132

                                          5
C.D. 2018, filed April 12, 2019) (unreported) (Parole Board’s stated reason of “new
conviction same/similar to the original offense” satisfied Pittman standard); and
Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1243
C.D. 2018, filed August 21, 2019) (unreported) (Parole Board’s stated reason of
“new conviction same/similar to original offense” satisfied Pittman standard). Here,
the Parole Board explained its decision to limit its award of credit to 154 days was
because of Soto’s conviction of a new offense and marginal adjustment while on
supervision. These reasons satisfy the Pittman standard.
             Soto contends, however, that if the Parole Board may deny all credit for
the stated reason that the parolee was convicted of a new offense similar to the
original offense, then it must explain why it awarded the parolee any credit. We
disagree. Our Court has held, specifically, that a new conviction similar to the
original offense constitutes an adequate explanation for the award of partial credit.
See Allah v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1429
C.D. 2018, filed May 15, 2019) (unreported).
             Soto received credit for 154 days of street time because that was the
number of days Soto was drug-free while on parole. In the hearing report, the
hearing examiner recommended that Soto be awarded partial credit “[b]ased on his
supervision adjustment,” noting that Soto’s “overall adjustment was marginal with
few sanctions/new minor convictions during this period.” C.R. 51. Based on that
report, the hearing examiner recommended that Soto be awarded credit from
“07/11/2018 (date of parole) to 12/12/2018 (date of drug use on parole),” i.e., 154
days. Id. Soto’s parole supervision record showed that he was released on parole
on July 11, 2018. On December 12, 2018, his urine sample tested positive for drugs,
and he was given a verbal warning. C.R. 26. See, e.g., Taylor v. Pennsylvania

                                         6
Parole Board (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 832 C.D. 2020, filed July 19, 2021) (unreported)
(Parole Board’s decision to award 433 days of credit from date of parole to date of
the first reported sanction was not arbitrary).
             The Parole Board could have provided more explanation for the 154
days’ credit, but it was not required to do so. Its choice of 154 days is apparent from
the record and is not arbitrary. Generally, an administrative agency’s exercise of
discretion will be upheld so long as it is authorized by statute. In other words, it is
not “arbitrary” to choose a number within a range authorized by statute. Eckhart v.
Department of Agriculture, 8 A.3d 401, 407 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Here, the Parole
Board’s choice of 154 days was fully consonant with its discretion under the Parole
Code, 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2.1).
             For these reasons, we affirm the Parole Board’s adjudication.

                            _____________________________________________
                            MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

                                           7
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Giovanni Soto,                     :
                        Petitioner :
                                   :
            v.                     :     No. 98 C.D. 2023
                                   :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,         :
                        Respondent :

                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2024, the adjudication of the
Pennsylvania Parole Board, mailed January 12, 2023, is AFFIRMED.

                         _____________________________________________
                         MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita