Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

48 Pa. Commw. 454

Campbell v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 11, 1980

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1980-01-11

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[The predecessor statute to Section 6138(a)(4) of the Code] provide[d] in part that “[t]he period of time for which the parole violator is required to serve shall be computed from and begin on the date that he is taken into custody to be returned to the institution as a parole ■violator.” This Court, however, in [Campbell], held that where the Board pursuant to [the prior statute] recommits a convicted parole violator to serve the balance of an original sentence before beginning service of a new term, the prisoner’s service of backtime on the original sentence must be 'computed from the date the Board revokes the prisoner’s parole. The Court further noted in Campbell that the time served by the prisoner prior to the date parole is revoked must be applied to the new sentence.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wilson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

“parole has been revoked and the remainder of the original sentence becomes due and owing.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Barnes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

Relies on Mitchell v. Commonwealth · 38 Pa. Commw. 488 - Davis v. CUYLER · Carter v. RAPONE

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-01-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2019

14 state decisions

501980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

Judge Craig,

¶2Petitioner Eobert M. Campbell seeks our review of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s computation of his sentences. The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment are before us for consideration.

¶3Petitioner was arrested on March 22, 1977, while on parole from an earlier sentence. Because he did not post bail, he remained in custody pending disposition of the new charges. The board filed a detainer on April 1, 1977 and, after a preliminary detention hearing, decided to return petitioner as a technical violator when available. No revocation hearing took place regarding any technical violations.

¶4On September 6, 1977, petitioner was convicted of narcotics violations and received a 1% to 5-year sentence. After a revocation hearing on November 10, 1977, the board, as of November 15, recommitted petitioner as a convicted parole violator.

¶5In early 1979 petitioner requested that the board recompute his sentences and allocate the time served from March 22 to November 15 to his new sentence. On March 9, 1979 the board responded that his sentences were computed in light of this court’s decision in Mitchell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 243, 375 A.2d 902 (1977), so that the board allocated the period in question to his old sentence.

¶6In late May, 1979, after this proceeding was instituted, the board again computed petitioner’s sentences, this time allocating the period between March *45622 and September 6, tbe date of sentencing, to Ms new sentence, in accordance with onr decisions in Carter v. Rapone, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 160, 394 A.2d 1092 (1978), and Davis v. Cuyler, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 488, 394 A.2d 647 (1978).

¶7Petitioner’s claim is that because the board did not recommit bim until November 15, 1977, Ms confinement between September 6 and November 15 should likewise be credited to the new sentence. We agree.

¶8The matter is controlled by statute. Although Section 21.1(a) of the Act of August 6, 19411 requires a convicted parole violator to serve the balance of his original sentence before beginMng service of a newly-imposed term, “this rule only becomes operative when parole has been revoked and the remainder of the original sentence becomes due and owing. ’ ’ Richmond v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 43 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 603, 402 A.2d 1134, at 1135 (1979).

¶9Because the board revoked petitioner’s parole as of November 15,1977, service of Ms back time on the old sentence must be computed from and begin on that date.

¶10Therefore, we will grant summary judgment in petitioner’s favor, and order the board to recompute his sentences, crediting the time from September 6, 1977 to November 15,1977 to the sentence imposed September 6,1977 and to no other sentence.

President Judge Bowman concurs in result only.

¶11Order

¶12And Now, this 11th day of January, 1980, summary judgment is granted to the petitioner, Robert M. Campbell, and the PennsylvaMa Board of Probation and Parole is ordered to recompute his sentences, *457crediting the time from September 6, 1977 to November 15,1977 to the sentence imposed September 6,1977 and to no other sentence.

¶13This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSalle.

¶14 P.L. 861, as amended, added by Section 5 of tbe Act of August 24, 1951, P.L. 1401, as amended, 61 P.S. §331.21a(a).

/48/pacommw/454 · .json · Public domain