J-A04004-24
2024 PA Super 303
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOCELYN HELEN TIGLIO :
:
Appellant : No. 2255 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered August 15, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County
Criminal Division at Nos: CP-13-CR-0001105-2021,
CP-13-CR-0001318-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOCELYN HELEN TIGLIO :
:
Appellant : No. 2855 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered August 15, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County
Criminal Division at No: CP-13-CR-0001318-2021
BEFORE: STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*
OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 18, 2024
Appellant, Jocelyn Helen Tiglio, appeals from an order in which the trial
court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant her work release, furlough,
and/or parole. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A04004-24
On January 4, 2022, Appellant pled guilty to two separate counts of
simple possession of controlled substances (fentanyl and methamphetamine)
under 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).1 In the fentanyl case, Appellant checked
into a rehabilitation facility on the evening of February 19, 2021, and brought
with her twenty bags of fentanyl that she placed in a rubber glove concealed
in her vagina. She snorted ten bags throughout the night, and the remaining
bags were found on her person. In the methamphetamine case, when law
enforcement officials served an arrest warrant on Appellant at her mother’s
home on August 30, 2021, they discovered her in an attic hiding in a wooden
chest with 4.87 grams of methamphetamine, two loaded syringes, two empty
syringes, ten glassine baggies with fentanyl, one spoon with residue, and one
clear baggie with soaked Q-tip cotton balls.
Prior to pleading guilty, Appellant had been convicted twice of
possession of drug paraphernalia, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), and multiple
drug-related convictions. The court ordered a pre-sentence investigation prior
to sentencing. The report reflected that Appellant is single, never married,
and has two children under the age of ten. The father of both of Appellant’s
____________________________________________
1 Section 780-113(a)(16) is a provision within the Controlled Substance, Drug,
Device and Cosmetic Act (“Controlled Substance Act”), 35 P.S. §§ 780-101—
780-144. Section 780-113(a)(16) prohibits the defendant from “[k]nowingly
or intentionally possessing a controlled or counterfeit substance by a person
not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or licensed by
the appropriate State board, unless the substance was obtained directly from,
or pursuant to, a valid prescription order or order of a practitioner, or except
as otherwise authorized by this act.” Id.
-2-
J-A04004-24
children died of an overdose of fentanyl. Appellant has been an addict since
she was fourteen years old, and although she has received treatment in
approximately twenty rehabilitation facilities, she continues to use drugs.
Appellant was in county prison at the time of sentencing on December
9, 2022. The court sentenced Appellant in the methamphetamine case to
imprisonment of one year less one day to three years to be served in a state
correctional institution. The court sentenced Appellant in the fentanyl case to
six months to two years’ imprisonment to be served in a state correctional
institution consecutive to the methamphetamine sentence. Appellant’s
aggregate sentence was one and a half years (less one day) to five years’
imprisonment. Both sentences were within the standard guideline range and
made Appellant RRRI-eligible2 and eligible for the State Drug Treatment
Program. Neither sentence granted any form of work release. The court
explained that it imposed a state sentence because Appellant had exhausted
all potential resources and options at the county level, and the state had
resources not available to the county to address Appellant’s drug and mental
health issues. Opinion, 10/12/23, at 4. The court further noted that if
Appellant successfully completed the State Drug Treatment Program, she
could complete her sentence in two years instead of five years. Id.
Following sentencing, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) refused to accept Appellant’s transfer from county prison to state
____________________________________________
2 See 61 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4501-4512 (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive).
-3-
J-A04004-24
prison. On December 18, 2022, Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions
for reconsideration of her sentences and a supplement on January 10, 2023.
Appellant’s motion objected to the DOC’s rejection of her transfer to state
prison. The DOC acknowledged that Appellant’s sentences met the
jurisdictional threshold for length—two years or greater, see 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9762(b)—but claimed the grading requirement of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9762(i)
was not met because none of the convictions on which Appellant was
sentenced were second-degree misdemeanors or higher. Appellant therefore
had to remain in county prison.
On March 2, 2023, following two hearings, the court denied Appellant’s
post-sentence motion. The order advised Appellant of her right to appeal to
the Superior Court and contained the notice and information required by
Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(4). Appellant did not file a direct appeal.
On May 8, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se motion for work release.
Several days later, counsel for Appellant filed a memorandum stating that if
the county chose to keep Appellant, the trial court retained the authority to
grant Appellant work release and ultimately to parole her sometime in the
future. Counsel argued Appellant remained subject to county jurisdiction by
virtue of being a Carbon County Correctional inmate by default.3
____________________________________________
3 On May 22, 2023, Appellant filed a petition for furlough to attend adult and
teen challenge inpatient rehabilitation. On August 11, 2023, Appellant filed a
praecipe to withdraw her petition for furlough.
-4-
J-A04004-24
On August 10, 2023, the Commonwealth filed a response opposing work
release. On August 14, 2023, the court entered an order denying work
release. In a footnote, the court opined that Appellant’s aggregate sentence
was properly classified as a state sentence and should be served in a state
correctional facility, and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to grant work
release, furlough or parole. On August 29, 2023, the court denied Appellant’s
motion for reconsideration of the August 14, 2023 order. On August 30, 2023,
Appellant appealed to this Court. Both Appellant and the trial court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises a single issue in this appeal:
Whether the Trial Court erred in determining that it lacked
jurisdiction to grant [Appellant] either work release, furlough,
and/or to parole [Appellant] from the Carbon County Correctional
Facility (“CCCF”) when the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) administratively rejected the DC-5B Transfer
Request of the CCCF to transfer [Appellant] from CCCF to serve
her 1.5 to 5 year state prison Sentence at the State Correctional
Institute (“SCI”) on two ungraded misdemeanor possession
counts and [Appellant] remains at the CCCF to serve the
remainder of her aforesaid Sentence at the county prison in lieu
of the DOC’s rejection of the inmate transfer request.
Appellant’s Brief at 3.4 Appellant argues that the trial court erred by ruling
that it lacks jurisdiction to grant work release, furlough or parole to Appellant.
____________________________________________
4 Section 9762(b)(1) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A § 9762(b)(1),
requires all persons sentenced to total or partial confinement for a maximum
term of five or more years be committed to the DOC. Section 9762(i) permits
the DOC to refuse to commit a person to a state institution even when they
are to be confined for five or more years, unless the aggregate sentence
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-5-
J-A04004-24
We conclude first that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant work
release. Appellant in essence was asking the trial court to modify her sentence
to provide for work release. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9755 (at time of sentencing
a court may provide for a defendant to work at their employment). The trial
court, however, no longer had jurisdiction to modify her sentence. A
defendant seeking a modification of sentence must do so by filing a post-
sentence motion for modification of sentence within ten days after sentencing.
See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720. Although Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion
challenging the DOC’s refusal to transfer her to state prison, she did not seek
a modification for work release. The court denied Appellant’s motion on March
2, 2023, and Appellant did not file a direct appeal from that order. Thus,
Appellant long ago lost the right to seek work release as a part of her sentence
through a post-sentence motion filed within ten days of sentencing.
A court does, however, possess the authority to modify any order within
30 days if no appeal has been filed under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5505. Accordingly,
____________________________________________
consists of a conviction for an offense graded as a misdemeanor of the second
degree or higher or the Secretary of Corrections or the secretary’s designee
has consented to the commitment. As stated above, Appellant filed post-sentence motions objecting to the DOC’s refusal to accept her transfer from
county to state prison. The trial court then made inquiry to the DOC
questioning its refusal to accept Appellant into a state institution where the
aggregate term of her sentences—five years—exceeded that of a second-degree misdemeanor. The DOC responded, without further explanation, that
the request for transfer was denied. The court then denied Appellant’s post-sentence motions. Appellant did not appeal from this order, so the issue of
whether the DOC erred in its decision to reject Appellant’s transfer is not
before us.
-6-
J-A04004-24
the court could have modified Appellant’s sentence to provide for work release
had it done so within 30 days of its sentencing order. A court loses jurisdiction
to take any action under this statute more than thirty days after sentencing.
Here, the court did not act to modify Appellant’s sentence within the 30 days
it retained jurisdiction to do so under Section 5505.
Appellant asserts that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant her work
release as a county prisoner under two provisions, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9813 and
9755.5 Neither statute provides an avenue to grant Appellant work release.
Section 9813 provides in relevant part:
Notwithstanding any provision of law, if any offender has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment in a county jail for a
term of less than five years, the court, at the time of
sentence or at any time thereafter upon application made in
accordance with this section, may enter an order making the
offender eligible to leave the jail during necessary and reasonable
hours for the purpose of working at his employment, conducting
his own business or other self-employed occupation, including
housekeeping and attending to the needs of family, seeking
employment, attending an educational institution, securing
medical treatment or for other lawful purposes as the court shall
consider necessary and appropriate.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9813(a) (emphasis added). This provision does not assist
Appellant’s request for work release consideration, since the statute by its
clear and plain language, at a minimum, dictates that the court only has the
power to grant work release under terms of imprisonment in a county jail if a
____________________________________________
5 Section 9755 was raised sua sponte by this Court during oral argument and
the parties were asked to file supplemental briefs on the issue.
-7-
J-A04004-24
sentence is for less than five years. Appellant’s sentence is for a maximum
of five years.6
Nor does 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9755 aid Appellant’s cause. That statute is
found in the “Imposition of Sentence” subchapter of the Sentencing Code, a
series of statutes that concern the types of sentences that the court can
impose and related subjects. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9751-9765 (Subchapter E
of Sentencing Code). Section 9755, entitled “Sentence of Partial
Confinement,” provides in relevant part:
(a) General Rule.--The court shall specify at the time of
sentencing the length of the term during which the defendant is
to be partially confined, which term may not exceed the maximum
term for which he could be totally confined, and whether the
confinement shall commence in a correctional or other appropriate
institution.
…
(c) Purposes for partial release.--The court may in its
order grant the defendant the privilege of leaving the institution
during necessary and reasonable hours for any of the following
purposes:
(1) To work at his employment.
(2) To seek employment.
(3) To conduct his own business or to engage in other selfemployment, including housekeeping and attending to the needs
of the family.
(4) To attend an educational institution or participate in a course
of vocational training.
(5) To obtain medical treatment.
____________________________________________
6 We need not resolve at this time whether Section 9813 may be used by a
trial court where it provides for a sentence of five years or more to be served
in a state facility but a defendant is serving time in a county facility due to the
DOC’s refusal to admit the defendant to a state facility.
-8-
J-A04004-24
(6) To devote time to any other purpose approved by the court.
(d) Conditions to release.--The court may in addition include
in its order such of the conditions as are enumerated in section
9763 (relating to conditions of probation) as may be reasonably
related to the sentence.
Id. (emphasis added). Appellant argues that she is a county inmate and is
therefore eligible for work release under subsections (c) and (d) of Section
9755. This argument fails because Section 9755 states that the court can
grant work release or other remedies under this statute only “at the time of
sentencing” and “in its [sentencing] order.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9755(a, c, d). The
court did not grant work release at the time of sentencing, and Section 9755
does not authorize the court to do so now.
We next address Appellant’s claim that the court erred in failing to grant
her a furlough. The authorities Appellant cites for this proposition are identical
to the authorities she cites concerning work release. Accordingly, this claim
fails for the same reasons given above concerning her request for work
release.
Finally, we turn to Appellant’s argument that pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6132(a)(2), the trial court erred in failing to grant her parole. The court
concluded that it did not have the power to grant parole, since that is the
exclusive province of the State Parole Board for persons committed to
incarceration for more than two years. We conclude the trial court was in
error in this regard and therefore reverse that part of its decision.
-9-
J-A04004-24
Section 6132 provides that the Parole Board shall have exclusive power
to parole and reparole, commit and recommit persons for violations of parole
and to discharge from parole all persons sentenced by any court at any time
to imprisonment in a State correctional institution pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9762. However, this exclusive power does not apply, inter alia, to those
persons committed to county confinement within the jurisdiction of a court
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9762. 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 6132(a)(2)(ii). Although
the court imposed a “state sentence,” Appellant was placed in the county
facility under the jurisdiction of the trial court because the DOC declined to
accept her into a state institution under Section 9762(i). It therefore was
within the power of the trial court to consider Appellant’s request for parole.
We also observe that since the Parole Board does not have parole jurisdiction
over Appellant by virtue of Section 6132(a)(2)(ii), a trial court possesses the
power to release an inmate on parole if the inmate is in the county correctional
institution of that judicial district. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9776(a). Therefore, while
the trial court could not modify Appellant’s sentence to provide for work
release or to grant her furlough for the above stated reasons, it was within
the trial court’s authority to consider Appellant’s request for parole. Since the
trial court did not consider Appellant’s parole request because it did not believe
it had the power to do so, we remand the Appellant’s request for parole for
further consideration by the court by virtue of Section 6132(a)(2)(ii) and
Section 9776.
- 10 -
J-A04004-24
For the above reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order denying relief to
Appellant to modify her sentence to provide for work release and/or for
furlough but remand this matter for the court to reconsider Appellant’s request
for parole.
Order affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Date: 12/18/2024
- 11 -
