Jaron Mitchell v. Pennsylvania Parole Board

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that Jaron Mitchell was entitled to credit for 11 days during which he remained physically confined in North Carolina after North Carolina authorities directed his release to a probation or parole officer. Applying Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, the court concluded that Mitchell was held solely on the Pennsylvania Parole Board's detainer during that period. The court reversed the Board's order and remanded for recalculation of Mitchell's maximum sentence date.

Holdings

1. When a parole violator is physically confined solely because of a Pennsylvania Parole Board detainer after the new criminal sentence has been resolved and the new jurisdiction has directed release, the confinement must be credited against the violator's original Pennsylvania sentence.
2. Under 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(4), the recalculation period begins when the parole violator becomes legally available for return to the Board, not when the Board is notified of that availability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mitchell was entitled to credit against his original Pennsylvania sentence for the 11 days he remained physically confined in North Carolina after North Carolina authorities directed his release to a probation or parole officer.
2. Whether 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(4) required the recalculation period to begin only when the Board learned that Mitchell was available for return to Pennsylvania.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded