Palmer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
Docket: No. 222 C.D. 1997
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; December 22, 1997; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Gary Palmer appeals a denial of administrative relief from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. He was originally sentenced on January 29, 1981, to 10 to 20 years for robbery, with a maximum expiration on September 14, 1999. After serving 10 years, he was paroled on May 18, 1990, but was later recommitted as a convicted parole violator following a new conviction on March 14, 1991, extending his maximum expiration date to January 8, 2000. Palmer faced further recommitments for technical violations in 1992 and 1993, and was reparoled in December 1993. Upon his release, he acknowledged a parole condition stating that any new crime could lead to recommitment without credit for time served on parole.
Palmer was recommitted again on January 26, 1996, after another new conviction, with his expiration date now set for October 24, 2001. His request for administrative relief was denied on January 10, 1997, prompting this appeal. Palmer argues that the board violated his constitutional rights by not notifying him that he might lose "street time" prior to his recommitment hearing, citing due process concerns from case law. However, the court notes that while certain jurisdictions may require such notification, Pennsylvania law mandates the forfeiture of street time upon recommitment as a convicted parole violator, as outlined in the Parole Act.
A parolee recommitted as a convicted parole violator forfeits all street time automatically, as mandated by statute, and due process does not require prior notice since there is no argument to mitigate the loss. In this case, once the board recommitted Palmer, the loss of street time was automatic, and he had previously signed a form acknowledging the consequences of new convictions while on parole, which included a lack of credit for street time. Palmer's claim that the board erred by recommitting him after his original sentence's expiration was rejected. According to Section 21.1(b) of the Parole Act, a technical parole violator receives credit for street time if in good standing and cannot be recommitted beyond the original sentence expiration. However, this credit does not apply if the parolee commits a new crime, leading to a recommitment as a convicted parole violator. Palmer's street time was properly forfeited, and upon recommitment, his maximum expiration date was recalculated to October 24, 2001, reflecting the loss of street time. The board's actions were affirmed, with the final order issued on December 23, 1997, confirming the adjustments to Palmer's maximum term expiry. The review process considered whether findings were supported by evidence, if legal errors occurred, or if constitutional rights were violated.
