Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, as amended, 61 P. S. § 331.21a, added by Section 5 of the Act of August 24, 1951, P.L. 1410. Dorsey first argues before this Court that once the Board recommitted him for the technical violations on February 27, 2003, an action that does not require the forfeiture of street time,see Houser v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 682 A.2d 1365 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996), it could not then, on November 4, 2003, when recommitting him for the new criminal conviction, reach back and take away his street time for the parole period preceding that February 27th recommitment. The period of street time in issue began November 30, 2000 (the date Dorsey was paroled prior to the first recommitment for technical parole violations) and ends October 5, 2001 (the date he was arrested by Board agents for the second set of technical violations).
This includes any prior time that you were on parole. Houser v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole , 682 A.2d 1365 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). In this case, you were previously on parole from November 19, 2007 to February 18, 2013 which amounts to 1918 days.
This Court has previously determined that a parolee who: (1) receives credit for time served while at liberty on parole after he is recommitted as a TPV, (2) is subsequently reparoled, (3) commits a crime, and (4) is then recommitted as a CPV, loses all his credited street time from the previous parole as well as the current parole period. See Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348, 351 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); and Houser v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 682 A.2d 1365, 1367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). In Houser, this Court determined that a parolee recommitted as a CPV is properly denied credit to his maximum sentence for the time he spent at liberty on parole that he earned prior to recommitment as a TPV because:
Requests for Administrative Relief/Review received January 26, 2011, and February 23, 2011, respectively, because they were submitted more than thirty days after Mr. Hontz had received the September Decision. (March Determination at 1.) The Board then analyzed its recalculation of Mr. Hontz's new maximum date, without considering any of the allegations contained in the January 2011 "Request for Administrative Relief," i.e., that Mr. Hontz was entitled to credit for the time he stayed at the WCCC pursuant to Cox. The Board concluded, inter alia, that because Mr. Hontz was recommitted as a CPV, he forfeited the credit he previously had for the period from January 9, 2006, through August 17, 2007, under Houser v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 682 A.2d 1365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). (March Determination at 1.) Additionally, the Board noted that Mr. Hontz was not entitled to any credit for the period he was incarcerated before July 1, 2010, the date he pled guilty to new criminal charges and was sentenced to a new term of imprisonment, because he was not incarcerated solely on the Board's detainer pursuant to Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 488 Pa. 397, 412 A.2d 568 (1980).
Thus, upon recommitment as a convicted parole violator, in addition to losing all time spent at liberty during the current parole, a parolee will also forfeit all credit received for time spent in good standing while on parole prior to his previous recommitment as a technical parole violator.Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348, 351 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Gair v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation, and Parole, 948 A.2d 884 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008); Melendez v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 944 A.2d 824 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008); Dorsey v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 854 A.2d 994 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004); Palmer v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 704 A.2d 195 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997); Houser v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 682 A.2d 1365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (Friedman, J., dissenting); Andrews v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 101 Pa.Cmwlth. 468, 516 A.2d 838 (1986); Caldwell v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 98 Pa. Cmwlth. 157, 511 A.2d 884 (1986); Anderson v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa.Cmwlth. 574, 472 A.2d 1168 (1984); Morris v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 77 Pa. Cmwlth. 85, 465 A.2d 97 (1983). Richards would like this Court to find that the ruling in Gregory conflicts with the remainder of this Court's jurisprudence, and that this Court should follow Gregory as opposed to the other cited caselaw.
Palmer. . . . While Section 21.1(b) of the Parole Act, 61 P.S. § 331.21a(b), provides that a technical parole violator will be given credit for street time served in good standing, time spent in good standing prior to recommitment for technical violations is not shielded from forfeiture where the parolee subsequently commits a new crime and is recommitted as a convicted parole violator. Houser v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 682 A.2d 1365 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 547 Pa. 759, 692 A.2d 568 (1997); Anderson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa. Cmwlth. 574, 472 A.2d 1168 (1984). Thus, upon recommitment as a convicted parole violator, in addition to losing all time spent at liberty during the current parole, a parolee will also forfeit all credit received for time spent in good standing white on parole prior to his previous recommitmentas a technical parole violator.
In setting this new, extended parole release date, the Board determined, consistent with state law that, because Petitioner was recommitted as a convicted parole violator, he was not entitled to credit for any time that he was at liberty on parole. 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2); Houser v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 682 A.2d 1365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Thus, the Board found that a total of 3,610 days were subject to forfeiture by virtue of the fact that Petitioner was recommitted as a convicted parole violator.
Holman v. Local Cooperative Sanitation Council; Horr, Petition of ...... 3/7/97 610 Denied Pa.Cmwlth., W.D. 677 A.2d 1335 (1996) Houser v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole ........... 4/1/97 644 Denied Pa.Cmwlth., M.D. 682 A.2d 1365 (1996) Lawrence Tp. v. Hand v. Veihdeffer 3/17/97 0299 Denied Pa.Cmwlth., W.D. 677 A.2d 405 (1996)
This includes 202 days from July 29, 2010 to February 16, 2011. Houser v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 682 A.2d 1365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). You are entitled to 429 days credit on your parole violation maximum date for the time you were detained solely by the Board from September 14, 2010 to January 19, 2011 (127 days); November 3, 2014 to February 17, 2015 (106 days); and August 10, 2015 to February 22, 2016 (196 days). On November 30, 2016, you were sentenced to incarceration in county prison.
While Section 21.1(b) of the Parole Act, 61 P.S. §331.21a(b),[] provides that a [TPV] will be given credit for street time served in good standing, time spent in good standing prior to recommitment for technical violations is not shielded from forfeiture where the parolee subsequently commits a new crime and is recommitted as a [CPV]. Houser v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 682 A.2d 1365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), petition for allowance of appeal denied, . . . 692 A.2d 568 ([Pa.]1997); Anderson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, . . . 472 A.2d 1168 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1984). Thus, as in the case with Petitioner . . . upon his recommitment as a [CPV], in addition to losing all time spent at liberty during the current parole, he also forfeited all credit received for time spent in good standing while on parole prior to his previous recommitment as a [TPV].