Court Opinion

ID: 9917470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 15:10:20.789535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:08.661691
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John Wesley Silvain, Jr.,                 :
                  Petitioner              :
                                          :
             v.                           :
                                          :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,                :   No. 788 C.D. 2022
                  Respondent              :   Submitted: September 22, 2023

BEFORE:      HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
             HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
             HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                                    FILED: January 12, 2024

             John Wesley Silvain, Jr. (Silvain), through counsel, petitions for review
of the June 24, 2022 decision of the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) denying his
administrative challenge to the computation of his parole violation maximum date.
Upon review, we affirm.

                                  I. Background
             In December 2015, Silvain received an aggregate sentence of 1 year,
10 months to 5 years of incarceration following convictions of simple assault, flight
to avoid apprehension, and violation of probation on the basis of a drug-related
offense. Certified Record (C.R.) at 1-2 & 7. Silvain’s maximum sentence date was
then August 13, 2020. Id. at 2. The Board paroled Silvain in September 2017, at
which time 1059 days remained on his original sentence. Id. at 7, 9 & 134. On July
11, 2018, Silvain absconded from supervision and was declared delinquent. Id. at
11 & 134.
                On July 23, 2018, Silvain was arrested in Franklin County on new
criminal charges. Id. at 134. The same day, Silvain was denied bail and the Board
issued a warrant to commit and detain him for violation of parole. Id. at 12 & 134.
In October 2018, the Board detained Silvain on the basis of the new criminal charges
and recommitted him for technical parole violations related to delinquency. Id. at
134. The Board computed a parole violation maximum date of August 25, 2020,
accounting for Silvain’s 12-day delinquency period. Id. The Board lifted its detainer
on August 13, 2020, at which point Silvain remained incarcerated solely on the new
criminal charges until posting nominal bail on March 19, 2021. Id. at 85 & 134-35.
On December 22, 2021, the Court of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Franklin County Branch (trial court) sentenced Silvain to 11.5 to 23
months’ incarceration after his conviction on the new charges, to be served in
Franklin County Prison. Id. at 135.
                On January 18, 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
(Department) issued a warrant to commit and detain Silvain for violation of parole.1
C.R. at 19 & 135. In March 2022, the Board ordered Silvain’s recommitment and
issued a parole violation maximum date of October 22, 2024, which it calculated by
adding Silvain’s remaining “backtime” to his January 18, 2022 “custody for return”
date, less 51 days’ “backtime” credit for the period from June 23, 2020 to August
13, 2020. Id. at 130.

      1
          See infra note 3.

                                         2
               The following month, upon motion filed on behalf of Silvain and with
the agreement of the Commonwealth, the trial court amended counts 4 and 6 of the
sentencing orders to accord Silvain credit from July 23, 2018 to September 23, 2019
(14 months) and August 14, 2020 through May 14, 2021 (9 months). Id. at 128.
Also in April 2022, Silvain petitioned the Board for administrative review of his
parole violation maximum date. Id. at 126-27.
               By decision mailed June 24, 2022, the Board denied Silvain’s
administrative challenge to his parole violation maximum date. See C.R. at 134-36.
The Board noted that Silvain was not detained solely pursuant to the Board’s warrant
from July 23, 2018 to March 19, 2021, when he posted bail, and was, therefore, not
entitled to “backtime” credit on that basis. Id. at 135 (citing Gaito v. Pa. Bd of Prob.
and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980)). However, the Board concluded that

               because Silvain served in excess of the 23-month
               maximum period of incarceration, [it] did apply credit for
               51 days from June 23, 2020 (7/23/2018 + 23 months) to
               August 13, 2020 (the day the Board’s detainer was lifted).
               Martin v. Pa. [Bd.] of Prob[.] and Parole, 840 A.2d 299
               (Pa. 2003). Thus, Silvain was left with 1059 - 51 = 1008
               days to serve on his original sentence based on the
               recommitment. Considering that Silvain was sentenced to
               county incarceration, the Prisons and Parole Code [(the
               Code)2] provides that he must serve the new sentence
               first. 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5). Because Silvain already
               completed the new term prior to sentencing on December
               22, 2021, he therefore became available to commence
               service of his original sentence when the Department []
               lodged a detainer for revocation [on] January 18, 2022.
               Adding 1008 days to January 18, 2022 yields a
               recalculated maximum date of October 22, 2024. Thus,

      2
          61 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-7301.

                                           3
                the Board properly recalculated [Silvain’s] maximum
                date.

Id. at 135.3
                Silvain petitioned this Court for review.

                                            II. Issues
                Before this Court,4 Silvain argues that the Board erred in failing to
accord him “backtime” credit for the period spanning September 24, 2019 to August
13, 2020, as he claims he was incarcerated “solely as a result of the state parole
detainer.” Silvain’s Br. at 11.5 Silvain contends that this “failure” of the Board “is
fundamentally unfair and constitutes a violation of his due process rights.” Id. at 11-

       3
           The Board noted:

                In October 2021, the seal on the [w]arrants to [c]ommit and [d]etain
                that are lodged against parole violators were changed from
                “Pennsylvania Parole Board” detainers to “Department of
                Corrections” detainers. For recalculation purposes, these detainers
                are treated the same pursuant to Gaito[ v. Pennsylvania Board of
                Probation and Parole, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980),] and Martin[ v.
                Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa.
                2003)].

C.R. at 135.

       4
         Our scope of review of a decision of the Board denying administrative relief is limited to
determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, an error of
law was committed, or constitutional rights have been violated. Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. &
Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

       5
         Confusingly, Silvain also asserts that the Board erred in failing to allocate credit for the
period of time spanning September 24, 2019 to August 13, 2020 “to the case [he] pled to in criminal
action number 2131 of 2018.” Silvain’s Br. at 11; see also C.R. at 123 (identifying an indictment
number of C.P. 2131-2018 in connection with the December 22, 2021 sentencing in Franklin
County).

                                                 4
12. Accordingly, Silvain requests that this Court order the Board to grant him
“backtime” credit for this period of time and “issue [him] a new parole violation
maximum date and re-parole date.”6 Id. at 12.

                                         III. Discussion
               As an initial matter, we observe that in addition to lacking specifics or
meaningful explanation, Silvain’s brief also fails to provide any citation to
supporting legal authority. Thus, we are unable to discern the basis of Silvain’s
argument; accordingly, it is waived.              See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating that the
argument section of the brief shall be divided into as many parts as there are
questions to be argued, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are
deemed pertinent); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009)
(stating, “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with
citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful
fashion capable of review, that claim is waived”).7

       6
          We note that Silvain’s request for the Board to issue his future “re-parole” date is
premature. See Martin, 840 A.2d at 302 (explaining that “[w]hen the minimum prison term
expires, an inmate becomes eligible for parole and makes application to the Board, requesting a
grant of parole”). Even though granting Silvain’s request would alter the date on which he
becomes eligible for re-parole, Silvain has not yet submitted an application for re-parole, nor has
the Board rendered a decision regarding any possible future application. See id.

       7
         We further note that Silvain’s appellate brief does not contain a statement of the questions
involved; thus, any challenge to the Board’s decision is subject to waiver for this additional reason.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (stating, “[n]o question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement
of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby”); Township of Concord v. Concord Ranch,
Inc., 664 A.2d 640, 651 (Pa. Cmwlth.1995) (holding that “[t]he failure of a party to act in
conformity with [Appellate Rule] 2116(a) constitutes a waiver of the issue”); see also Thomas v.
Elash, 781 A.2d 170, 176-77 (Pa. Super. 2001) (explaining that Appellate Rule 2116(a) “is to be
considered in the highest degree mandatory, admitting of no exception,” and that “no point will be
considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby”).

                                                  5
             Nonetheless, in the interest of completeness, we observe that, on the
basis of the record, we discern no error in the Board’s calculation. “[W]hen a
parolee: (1) is incarcerated on both new criminal charges and a detainer filed by the
Board and (2) does not post bail for the new criminal charges, the time spent
incarcerated shall be credited against the sentence for his new criminal charges.”
Williams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 68 A.3d 386, 389-90 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)
(citing Gaito, 412 A.2d at 571). However, “[i]f a parolee is being held solely on the
Board’s detainer, the parolee is entitled to credit on an original sentence for time
served while incarcerated awaiting resolution of new criminal charges.” Williams,
68 A.3d at 390 (citing Gaito, 412 A.2d at 571). “Backtime” credit is also available
when “a convicted parole violator receives a term of incarceration for new charges
that is shorter than his pre-sentence confinement, such that application of the general
Gaito rule would result in excess incarceration.” Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole,
171 A.3d 759, 768-69 (Pa. 2017) (citing Martin). Thus, as this Court has explained,

             where a parole violator is confined on both the Board’s
             warrant and the new criminal charges and it is not possible
             to award all of the credit on the new sentence because the
             period of pre-sentence incarceration exceeds the
             maximum term of the new sentence, the credit must be
             applied to the offender’s original sentence.

Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348, 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
             Here, Silvain asserts that the Board erred in failing to grant him
“backtime” credit for the period of September 24, 2019 to August 13, 2020, as,
according to Silvain, he was detained solely pursuant to a “state parole detainer”
during this time. Silvain’s Br. at 11. However, Silvain is incorrect. He was confined
pursuant to both the Board’s detainer and the Franklin County criminal charges from

                                          6
his July 23, 2018 arrest until the Board lifted its detainer on August 13, 2020. C.R.
at 134-35;8 see also Martin, 840 A.2d at 303 (explaining that “when an offender is
held on new criminal charges as well as a detainer lodged by the Board, . . . the
offender is confined for both offenses”). Thus, Silvain’s contention lacks merit.
                In December 2021, Silvain was sentenced to a maximum term of 23
months’ incarceration. Id. at 135. Thus, the portion of Silvain’s pretrial detention
during which he was confined on both the Board’s detainer and the subsequent
criminal charges exceeded his maximum term by 51 days. Accordingly, the Board
did not err in crediting 51 days of “backtime” against Silvain’s original sentence to
yield a recalculated parole violation maximum date of October 22, 2024. See id. at
130 & 135; see also Smith, 171 A.3d at 768-69; Armbruster, 919 A.2d at 355.

                                        IV. Conclusion
                For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the June 24, 2022 decision of the
Board.

                                              ___________________________________
                                              CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

      8
          Silvain did not post bail until March 19, 2021. C.R. at 134-35.

                                                 7
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John Wesley Silvain, Jr.,             :
                  Petitioner          :
                                      :
            v.                        :
                                      :
Pennsylvania Parole Board,            :   No. 788 C.D. 2022
                  Respondent          :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2024, the June 24, 2022 decision
of the Pennsylvania Parole Board is AFFIRMED.

                                    ___________________________________
                                    CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge