Court Opinion

ID: 9907865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 15:09:23.021032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:08:01.194425
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Wayne Williams,                               :
                      Petitioner              :
                                              :   No. 1100 C.D. 2022
               v.                             :
                                              :   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 NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                       FILED: December 7, 2023

               Wayne Williams (Williams) petitions for review of the September 21,
2022 order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board). Therein, the Board affirmed its
decision mailed May 13, 2022, which recommitted Williams as a convicted parole
violator (CPV) for six months, denied credit for time spent at liberty on parole, and
recalculated his maximum sentence date to be September 13, 2024.                Williams’
appointed counsel, Kent D. Watkins, Esq. (Counsel), submitted an Application to
Withdraw as Counsel (Application) along with a Turner1 letter, in which Counsel
contends that the arguments raised by Williams in his Petition for Review are frivolous
and without merit. Upon review, we affirm the Board’s decision and grant Counsel’s
Application.

      1
          See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988).
                   I.     FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
             The relevant facts of this appeal are as follows. On July 16, 2018,
Williams was sentenced to serve one year and four months to five years’ incarceration
for driving under the influence. (Certified Record (C.R.) at 1.) Additionally, Williams
was serving two additional concurrent sentences of three months to one year for false
identification to law enforcement authorities and six months to two years for fleeing or
attempting to elude an officer. Id. At that point, Williams’ minimum sentence date
was August 18, 2019, and his maximum sentence date was April 18, 2023. Id.
Williams was paroled on August 19, 2019. (C.R. at 7-8.)
             On January 14, 2021, Williams was arrested for criminal conspiracy,
burglary, terroristic threats, simple assault, possession of a small amount of marijuana,
possession of drug paraphernalia, and harassment. (C.R. at 16, 25.) That same day,
the Board issued a warrant to commit and detain Williams. (C.R. at 11.) Williams did
not post bail. (C.R. at 25.) On February 3, 2021, Williams pled guilty to defiant
trespass. (C.R. at 18-23, 26.) The same day Williams was sentenced and ordered to
pay fines and costs. (C.R. at 18-23.)
             On March 18, 2021, the Board provided Williams a notice of its intention
to hold a revocation hearing, and Williams waived his right to a revocation hearing and
to counsel and admitted to his new convictions. (C.R. at 30-32.) On March 26, 2021,
the Board held its revocation hearing, and the hearing examiner recommended to
recommit Williams as a CPV to serve six months’ backtime and award him credit for
time spent at liberty on parole. (C.R. at 33-41.) The Board members agreed. Id.
             On February 25, 2021, Williams requested to withdraw his guilty plea,
and his disposition hearing was cancelled. (C.R. at 49.) As a result, the Board
rescinded its prior actions to recommit Williams as a CPV and detained him pending
the disposition of his outstanding criminal charges. (C.R. at 46.)

                                           2
             On March 25, 2022, Williams entered a plea of nolo contendere to defiant
trespass. (C.R. at 55-59, 88.) Williams was sentenced to serve one year of probation.
(C.R. at 55-59.)
             Again, the Board provided Williams with notice of its intention to hold a
revocation hearing on May 2, 2022. (C.R. at 67.) Williams waived his right to a
revocation hearing and to counsel and admitted to his new convictions. (C.R. at 68-
71.) The Board held its revocation hearing on May 4, 2022, and the hearing examiner
recommended to recommit Williams as a CPV and deny him credit for time spent at
liberty on parole. (C.R. at 72-80.) The Board members agreed. Id.
             By decision mailed May 13, 2022, the Board recommitted Williams as a
CPV for six months for his defiant trespass conviction. (C.R. at 44-45.) The Board
denied credit for time spent at liberty on parole due to Williams’ unresolved drug and
alcohol issues. (C.R. at 97-98.) Williams’ maximum sentence date was recalculated
to be September 13, 2024. (C.R. at 95.) Williams filed an administrative remedies
form with the Board on May 31, 2023, which challenged his recommitment as a CPV.
(C.R. at 99-100.) The Board affirmed its decision by an order mailed September 21,
2022.
             Williams’ appeal to this Court followed. This Court appointed Counsel
to represent Williams in his appeal. Thereafter, Counsel filed an Application and
Turner letter based on his belief that Williams’ appeal is without merit. Williams filed
a pro se brief in support of his petition for review, and the Board filed a brief in
response.
             This matter is now before us for disposition.

                                           3
                                          II.     ISSUES
              On appeal,2 Williams presents five issues. First, Williams argues that the
Board failed to give him credit for time spent confined solely on the Board’s detainer
and credit for backtime. Second, Williams contends the Board improperly extended
his maximum sentence. Third, Williams contends that because he was convicted
before a magisterial district judge, it was a technical parole violation rather than a
revocation case. Fourth, Williams asserts that the Board did not rescind its February
6, 2021 decision, and, therefore, that decision is still in effect. Fifth, and finally,
Williams argues the Board abused its discretion in denying credit for time at liberty on
parole.

                                      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 withdrawal, we independently review the merits of the
petitioner’s claims. Id. at 70.

       2
          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).

                                                 4
             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 issues Williams raised
in his administrative remedies form and Petition for Review. Counsel provides a
thorough analysis of why the case lacks merit and cites applicable regulations and case
law in support. Based on his review, Counsel concludes that Williams’ appeal to this
Court is without merit, and he requests permission to withdraw.
             Counsel provided Williams a copy of the Turner letter and his request to
withdraw. He also advised Williams 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 Williams’ petition for review lacks merit.
   B. Independent Review of the Merits
      i. Waiver
             First, Williams argues several issues for the first time on appeal: (1) the
Board should have credited him time spent solely on the Board’s detainer and credited
him backtime; (2) the Board improperly extended his maximum sentence; (3) the Board
did not rescind its February 6, 2021 decision, and, therefore, that decision is still in
effect; and (4) the Board abused its discretion in denying credit for time at liberty on
parole.
             As we have previously stated:
             Issues not raised . . . before the Board in an administrative
             appeal are waived for the purposes of appellate review by this
             court. Although Counsel does not raise the issue of waiver in
             [his] no-merit letter, this Court may sua sponte refuse to
             address an issue on appeal that was not raised or preserved
             below.

                                            5
Madison v. Pennsylvania Parole Board (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 754 C.D. 2020, filed July
27, 2021).3
               In his administrative appeal, Williams argued only that the Board erred in
its decision to recommit him as a CPV, and the recommitment term imposed. However,
Williams did not raise any of the above-mentioned issues. Therefore, although Counsel
addressed these in his Turner letter, we conclude that Williams has waived these issues
for purposes of appellate review.
   ii.       Whether the Board was authorized to recommit Williams as a CPV
               Next, we turn to Williams’ argument that the Board erred in recommitting
him as a CPV because he entered his plea and was sentenced before the trial court
“sitting as a magisterial judge.” (Williams’ Brief at 3.) From what the Court can glean
from Counsel’s Turner letter and Williams’ pro se brief, Williams argues that because
he was convicted before a magisterial district judge, this is a technical parole violation
instead of a CPV case. In his pro se brief, Williams cites Hufmen v. Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole, 58 A.3d 860 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) and argues that the
conviction was not in a court of record because it was before a trial judge operating as
the functional equivalent of a magisterial district judge. We disagree.
               Initially, we note that Section 6138(a)(1) of the Prisons and Parole Code
(Code)4 provides:
               A parolee under the jurisdiction of the [B]oard released from
               a correctional facility who, during the period of parole or

         3
        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
         Prisons and Parole Code, 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-7301. The Code became effective on October
13, 2009. The General Assembly recently amended the [] Code through the Act of June 30, 2021,
P.L. 260, No. 59, which, inter alia, changed some of the language in commonly cited sections of the
[] Code.

                                                6
              while delinquent on parole, commits a crime punishable by
              imprisonment, for which the parolee is convicted or found
              guilty by a judge or jury or to which the parolee pleads guilty
              or nolo contendere at any time thereafter in a court of record,
              may at the discretion of the [B]oard be recommitted as a
              parole violator.
61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, “[i]n order for a parolee to be
classified as a [CPV], a parolee must be convicted of a crime in a court of record.”
Goodwine v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 960 A.2d 184, 186 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2008).
              In Chesson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 47 A.3d 875
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), the Board recommitted the parolee after he pled guilty before the
Philadelphia County Municipal Court to disorderly conduct, a summary offense. The
parolee sought administrative review, arguing that since he was convicted by the
Municipal Court sitting as a magisterial district judge over a summary offense, his
conviction was not by a court of record and, thus, he could not be recommitted as a
CPV. The Board upheld its decision. On appeal to this Court, we reversed, stating that
“a conviction for a summary offense before the Municipal Court . . . is the functional
equivalent of a conviction before a magisterial district judge[]” and, thus, “is not a
conviction in a court of record for the purposes of [S]ection 6138(a)(1) of the [] Code.”
Id. at 880.
              Additionally, in Hufmen, this Court similarly addressed the capacity in
which the court of common pleas was acting when it disposed of a summary offense
conviction under Section 6138(a)(1) of the Code. There, the parolee was arrested and
charged with retail theft, conspiracy to commit retail theft, and resisting arrest, which
is a second-degree misdemeanor.         After the preliminary hearing, the case was
transferred to the court of common pleas. There, the parolee pled guilty to one count
of retail theft, which is a summary offense, and the Board recommitted the parolee as
a CPV. Subsequently, the parolee filed an administrative appeal with the Board and

                                            7
argued that because the court of common pleas was acting as a magisterial district judge
when it accepted his guilty plea, he was not convicted in a court of record and thus, the
Board erred by recommitting him based on a summary offense. The Board denied the
parolee’s administrative appeal. On appeal to this Court, we reversed the Board and
determined:
              Applying . . . Chesson, we must conclude that a conviction
              for a summary offense before a judge of the court of common
              pleas is the functional equivalent of a conviction before a
              magisterial district judge, which makes [the parolee’s]
              conviction of the summary offense of retail theft not a
              conviction in a court of record for the purposes of Section
              6138(a)(1) of the Code. Accordingly, because a conviction
              of only a summary offense, whether before a magisterial
              district judge or a common pleas judge, is not alone a
              sufficient basis to recommit a parolee as a [CPV], the order
              of the Board is reversed.

Hufmen, 58 A.3d at 865. Moreover, we stated that
              [t]he law is well settled that a summary offense conviction by
              a magisterial district judge, or [court of] common pleas judge
              sitting as a magisterial district judge, is not a conviction in a
              court of record and that the Board is not authorized to
              recommit a parolee as a [CPV] for such conviction.
Id. at 863.
              This Court has applied Chesson and Hufmen in similar cases to determine
whether the Board has the authority to recommit a CPV under Section 6138(a)(1)
where the parolee was convicted of a crime in a court of record. See, e.g., Goodwine;
Jackson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 951 A.2d 1238 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2008) (holding that the Board was not authorized to recommit the parolee as a CPV
because the judge was acting as magisterial district judge and, thus, the parolee was not
convicted in a court of record); Nicholas v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1375 C.D. 2018, filed July 16, 2019) (determining that

                                             8
because parolee pled guilty to a misdemeanor and not a summary offense, the Board
was authorized to recommit the parolee as a CPV).
             Our prior decisions in Hufmen, Chesson, Goodwine, and Jackson make it
clear that the Board is prohibited from recommitting a parolee as a CPV where a
parolee pleads guilty before a magisterial district judge or a common pleas court judge
presiding as a magisterial district judge over a summary offense because the plea was
not made before a court of record. However, here, the Board admitted into evidence
Williams’ Blair County Criminal Docket, which reflects that, on February 3, 2021,
Williams entered a nolo contendere guilty plea for defiant trespass. (C.R. at 26.) Thus,
Williams was not convicted of a summary offense and was instead convicted of defiant
trespass, which is a third-degree misdemeanor. Therefore, Williams’ conviction for
misdemeanor defiant trespass was a conviction for which the Board was authorized to
recommit him as a CPV.

                                 IV.    CONCLUSION
             Based on the foregoing discussion, we agree with Counsel that Williams’
petition for review has no merit. Accordingly, we grant Counsel’s Application and
affirm the Board’s decision.

                                           ________________________________
                                           PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

                                           9
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Wayne Williams,                      :
                  Petitioner         :
                                     :    No. 1100 C.D. 2022
           v.                        :
                                     :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,           :
                  Respondent         :

                                  ORDER

           AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2023, the September 21, 2022
order of the Pennsylvania Parole Board is hereby AFFIRMED and the Application
to Withdrawal as Counsel filed by Attorney Kent D. Watkins is hereby GRANTED.

                                         ________________________________
                                         PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge