Court Opinion

ID: 9534313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:38:33.16534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:15.992484
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Despite any deficiencies there may have been in the record in this case, there is one point that is so obvious that even the Majority noticed it:1 Cox’s attend*622anee at Eagleville Hospital’s in-patient drug program was imposed as a special condition of his parole, in that failure to complete that program successfully would be a parole violation resulting in his return to prison. The Majority is of the belief that we must determine whether the restrictions on Cox’s freedom at Eagleville were the equivalent of incarceration. In support of this, the Majority cites Hines v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 491 Pa. 142, 420 A.2d 381 (1980), apparently for the proposition that since a prisoner on “constructive parole,” which means he is still in prison, is “at liberty on parole,” then certainly Cox was also, since he was in something admittedly less onerous than prison.
This interpretation, however, ignores the plain meaning of Section 21.1 of the Parole Act,2 and renders the words “at liberty” as superfluous. For if the Legislature had intended this meaning, it would simply have stated that a recommitted parole violator shall be given no credit for the time spent on parole. This would include “street time," it would include the situation of constructive parole in Hines, and it would include all drug rehabilitation programs which concededly are not the equivalent of prison. If we would remand this case and find that Eagleville had bars on the windows, armed guards, and a moat surrounding its •grounds, would we then hold that Eagleville is the equivalent of prison, and give Cox credit for time spent there, since he would then not be considered to have been “at liberty on parole?” But what, then, of Mr. Hines, who was told that, although it may not have seemed so to him at the time, he was “at liberty on parole” while sitting in an actual prison?
Clearly, under the Majority’s rationale, Cox will have to prove that the restrictions imposed on him at Eagleville Hospital were greater than those of a prison, since, as the *623Majority notes, in Hines we held that a person confined in prison while technically on parole was “at liberty.” Under this standard no parolee would ever not be “at liberty on parole.” This is not what the Legislature intended, and it is why Hines is a very narrow exception that does not apply to the facts of this case.
I would reverse the Commonwealth Court and give Appellant credit for the time he spent at Eagleville Hospital (see note 5, p. 8 below), since to remand the case would shed no more light on what the term “at liberty on parole” means and would only be a waste of time.
I begin my analysis with the language of 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 331.21a,3 the pertinent part of which provides that a parolee who has been convicted of a crime may, “at the discretion of the board, be recommitted as a parole violator. If his recommitment is so ordered, he shall be re-entered to serve the remainder of the term which said parolee would have been compelled to serve had he not been paroled, and he shall be given no credit for the time spent at liberty on parole.” (Emphasis added).
We must determine how the phrase “at liberty on parole” applies to the present situation.
In affirming the Board, Commonwealth Court relied on its Opinion in Jones v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 44 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 610, 404 A.2d 755 (1979). Jones, however, involved an attack on the constitutionality of withholding of credit for time spent at liberty on parole. Commonwealth Court simply held that such a refusal of credit, and recomputation of a maximum expiration date accordingly, is not violative of constitutional rights. The question of what constitutes time spent at liberty on parole was never raised nor addressed.
Commonwealth Court also cited our decision in Hines v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 491 Pa. 142, 420 A.2d 381 (1980), in support of its decision. In *624Hines, the Appellant was placed on “constructive parole” while he began serving a consecutive sentence for another conviction. After being paroled on both sentences, he was arrested later for several new criminal offenses. In affirming the denial of credit for the time spent on constructive parole, we held that “at liberty on parole” did not mean “at liberty from all confinement,” but at liberty from confinement on the particular sentence for which the convict is being re-entered as a parole violator. Hines, however, did not address the question presented here, nor does its rationale apply to the question here.
Here, Cox was required by the Court to attend and complete an in-patient rehabilitation program. If he had not completed this program successfully, his parole would have been revoked. Although Eagleville State Hospital has no armed guards, walls or fences, the in-patient program required Cox physically to reside at Eagleville State Hospital; therefore, a certain amount of liberty was forfeited by compulsory attendance in this program.
We should not agree with Commonwealth Court’s statement that Cox’s “presence at the drug rehabilitation program was voluntary, the result of his acceptance of a condition of parole.” 4 To the contrary, Cox’s presence at the drug rehabilitation program was mandatory. The only voluntary aspect as far as Cox was concerned was that he could either “volunteer” for the program or remain in prison. In other words, only after successful completion of the required in-patient program would Cox be “at liberty on parole.”
Additionally, in Commonwealth v. Mallon, 267 Pa.Superior Ct. 163, 406 A.2d 569 (1979) and Commonwealth v. Usher, 264 Pa.Superior Ct. 435, 399 A.2d 1129 (1979), the Superior Court rationally reasoned that time spent in a drug rehabilitation program encompassed sufficient coercive features to constitute “custody” for the purposes of crediting defendants with time served during the probation phase. Commonwealth Court distinguished the holdings in Mallon *625and Usher on the grounds that they “involved situations in which the time spent in the program was a condition of probation rather than a condition of parole.” Cox, 78 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 185, 467 A.2d at 92. However, in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that the guarantees regarding probation and parole are constitutionally indistinguishable, stating that there is “[no] difference relevant to the guarantee of due process between the revocation of parole and the revocation of probation.” 411 U.S. at 782, 93 S.Ct. at 1759.
Furthermore, we should take note of the decisions of this jurisdiction which utilizes the term “street time” as a synonym for the phrase “time spent at liberty on parole” when construing 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 331.21a. See, Young v. Commonwealth Board of Probation and Parole, 487 Pa. 428, 409 A.2d 843 (1979); Lewis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 74 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 335, 459 A.2d 1339 (1983), Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 199, 392 A.2d 343 (1978), Commonwealth v. Greenlee, 263 Pa.Superior Ct. 477, 398 A.2d 676 (1979). I agree that time spent “at liberty on parole” does mean “street time,” and would distinguish the Hines decision as a narrow exception dealing only with the special case of constructive parole. Clearly, then, the time Cox was required to spend in the in-patient drug and alcohol rehabilitation program at Eagleville Hospital was not “street time.”
In conclusion, I believe that the time Cox was required to spend at Eagleville Hospital was sufficiently coercive to constitute “custody,” and would therefore hold that Cox should have received credit on his sentence for the time he spent there.5
LARSEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. The Majority states: “Pursuant to 37 Pa.Code § 63.5, the Board imposed as a special condition of Appellant’s parole, attendance at Eagleville Hospital’s in-patient drug and alcohol treatment program, defining failure to successfully complete (sic) that program as a parole violation." (Pp. 681-682), (emphasis added). Earlier in the Opinion, the Majority had contradicted this obvious fact by stating: “[Sjince Appellant agreed to attend Eagleville as part of his parole program, his attendance there is presumed to be "at liberty on parole.” (P. 681), (emphasis added). Where the Majority found evidence of this in the allegedly "deficient" record is beyond this writer, however; perhaps the Majority was lost in semantics. For example: Does Pennsylvania "impose” the requirement that a lawyer be a member of the State Bar before he can practice law? Or does a lawyer "agree” to become a member of the Bar as a special condition of his practicing law in Pennsylvania? Just as in the latter, a Lawyer can either "agree” to become a member of the Bar or not practice law; Cox could either *622“agree" to attend and complete successfully the in-patient drug program at Eagleville, or he could remain in prison. Now if that is not freedom of choice, what is?

. 61 P.S. § 331.21a.

. Section 21.1 of the Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861 added by Section 5 of the Act of August 24, 1951, as amended, 61 P.S. § 331.21a.

. Cox, 78 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 185, 467 A.2d at 92.

. The record presented to this Court is barren of any evidence to establish the exact dates of the compelled attendance in the in-patient program at Eagleville Hospital as a condition of parole. Cox’s various *626petitions for relief allege these inclusive dates to be from August 26, 1976 until February 1, 1977; however, this is not supported by the record. The only contradiction to these dates by the Board is found in its brief wherein it is alleged that "Cox entered that program on August 26, 1976, and successfully completed it on October 17, 1976, fifty-two (52) days later."
The Board further alleges in its brief that Cox voluntarily chose to enter a candidate program at Eagleville and as a result remained a resident beyond his discharge date until February 1, 1977. Surely this information could have been properly verified and submitted as part of the record.
Counsel are admonished that they must assure that a complete record is being supplied to the appellate courts in these appeals. Unverified allegations of fact made in briefs cannot be used to supplement the record.