Opinion
573 M.D. 2022
01-02-2025
Kyle Pierce, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Department of Correction, (Commonwealth Agency); George Little, (Secretary of Corrections); Dorina Varner, (Chief Grievance Officer); Bobbi Jo Salamon, (Superintendent/ Facility Manager at SCI Rockview), Respondents
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Submitted: November 7, 2024
BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, JUDGE
The above-captioned matter is a pro se petition for review (PFR) filed in our original jurisdiction by Kyle Pierce (Inmate), an inmate currently housed at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview (SCI-Rockview). Inmate seeks an order compelling the Pennsylvania Department of Correction (Commonwealth Agency); George Little, (Secretary of Corrections); Dorina Varner (Chief Grievance Officer); and Bobbi Jo Salamon, (Superintendent/Facility Manager at SCI Rockview) (collectively, DOC) to change the effective date of his term of commitment from May 28, 2005, to April 7, 2003, thereby "award[ing] credit for all time spent in custody as required by law and the judicial sentencing order from the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas [(trial court)]." PFR at 8. DOC has filed a preliminary objection (PO) in the nature of a demurrer to the PFR. We sustain DOC's PO and dismiss the PFR.
As this Court has explained:
"In considering a demurrer, we accept as true all well-pled material allegations in the [PFR], as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom." Allen v. Department of Corrections, 103 A.3d 365, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). However, "the [C]ourt need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion." Pennsylvania State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 909 A.2d 413, 416 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), aff'd, 924 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 2007).
"In addition, courts reviewing [POs] may not only consider the facts pled in the [PFR], but also any documents or exhibits attached to it." Allen, 103 A.3d at 369. "It is not necessary to accept as true any averments in the [PFR] that conflict with exhibits attached to it." Id. The test is whether, based on the pleadings, "it is clear and free from doubt the law will not permit recovery under the alleged facts; any doubt must be resolved by a refusal to sustain the demurrer." Id.; accord Drack v. Tanner, 172 A.3d 114, 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citing Bower v. Bower, 611 A.2d 181, 182 (Pa. 1992)).Vasilinda v. Department of Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 440 M.D. 2019, filed December 27, 2019), slip op. at 7; see also Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1)-(2) ("As used in this rule, 'non-precedential decision' refers to . . . an unreported memorandum opinion of the Commonwealth Court filed after January 15, 2008. . . . Non-precedential decisions . . . may be cited for their persuasive value.").
The facts of this case may be summarized as follows. Inmate has remained in custody under both state and federal charges since January 30, 2003, and he did not post bail or bond at any point. PFR ¶¶2, 9, 11. On October 22, 2004, Inmate was sentenced on his federal charges to a term of 138 months with 5 years of supervised release. Id. ¶1. Subsequently, on July 28, 2005, Inmate was sentenced by the trial court to a 20- to 40-year term of imprisonment on Pennsylvania convictions for third degree murder; robbery; attempted criminal homicide with serious bodily injury; recklessly endangering another person; and criminal conspiracy. Id. ¶1, Exhibit (Ex.) J.
On October 19, 2021, Inmate filed a request to staff at SCI-Rockview seeking correction to the "miscalculation" of his sentence because DOC's "effective date" was July 28, 2005, and he should have been granted credit for the 560 days that he spent in pretrial custody. PFR ¶¶12, 14. Inmate's request was denied, so he filed a grievance and subsequent appeals through DOC's grievance process. See id. ¶¶13-18.
On March 17, 2022, a notice of referral was sent by the Secretary of Corrections' Office for Inmate Grievances and Appeals (SOIGA), which indicated that the grievance appeal had been sent to DOC's Centralized Sentence Computation Unit (CSCU) for review. PFR ¶18, Ex. H. Ultimately, on June 30, 2022, the Chief Grievance Officer issued a Final Appeal Decision upholding DOC's determination, and providing the following Response:
This office is in receipt of your appeal, has reviewed all applicable documents, and consulted with relevant professional staff. In your grievance you claim that you have 560 days of pretrial credit that was no[t] applied to your sentence. You seek to have this corrected.
A review of the records by the [CSCU] reflects that the [Form-]DC300B made no mention of pretrial credit. [The trial court's] sentenc[ing] orders do state credit for time served as allowed by law, but fail to note what that credit time is. Upon receipt of a credit order from the [trial] court's indication, the amount or dates of pretrial credit
you are to be awarded will be applied. Based on the review, your appeal and any requested relief is denied.Id. ¶19, Ex. I.
On November 29, 2022, Inmate filed the instant PFR again seeking
an order providing injunctive and declaratory relief in immediately directed [DOC] to change the 'effective date' of [his] sentence from May 28, 2005[,] to April 7, 2003[,] to award credit for all time spent in custody as required by law and the judicial sentencing order from the [trial court.]
PFR at (VI)1. DOC filed the instant POs in response, asserting that Inmate has failed to state cause of action for mandamus because "[w]ithout a [trial] court order, [DOC] cannot issue 560 days of time credit based on [Inmate's] assertions alone." POs ¶20. We agree.
Inmate also requested "[a]ny other relief [that] this Court deems appropriate in the interest of justice." PFR at (VI)2.
As this Court has explained:
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel the performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty. McCray v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127, 1131 (Pa. 2005); Black v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 889 A.2d 672, 674 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). It is well established that mandamus is available only where the plaintiff or petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief requested, the defendant or respondent has a corresponding duty to perform the requested act, and there is no other appropriate and adequate remedy. McCray, 872 A.2d at 1131; Hoyt v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 79 A.3d 741, 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Black, 889 A.2d at 674 n.3; Saunders v. Department of Corrections, 749 A.2d 553, 556 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to correct an error in DOC's computation of maximum and minimum dates of confinement where the sentencing order clearly
gives the inmate credit for the time period in question and DOC's computation does not comply with that credit. Oakman v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 903 A.2d 106, 108-09 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); Black, 889 A.2d at 677; Saunders, 749 A.2d at 556. It cannot be used to challenge DOC's failure to give credit where the sentencing order is either ambiguous or does not provide the credit at issue. McCray, 872 A.2d at 1132-33; Hoyt, 79 A.3d at 742-43; Black, 889 A.2d at 677; Saunders, 749 A.2d at 556. The requirements for mandamus cannot be satisfied in those circumstances because there is no clear right to relief and because the inmate has an adequate and more appropriate alternative remedy of seeking modification or clarification of the sentence in the trial court. McCray, 872 A.2d at 1132-33; Hoyt, 79 A.3d at 742-43; Black, 889 A.2d at 677; Saunders, 749 A.2d at 556.Canfield v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 585 M.D. 2016, filed Aug. 11, 2017), slip op. at 3-4; see also Mullen v. Department of Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 328 M.D. 2013, filed Jan. 30, 2014), slip op. at 3-4 (same).
In this case, the trial court's sentencing orders, which are appended to the PFR, merely state that Inmate is to receive credit "as required by law, for all time spent in custody, as a result of these criminal charges for which sentence is being imposed." PFR Ex. J. Thus, the trial court's sentencing orders do not specifically grant Inmate credit for 560 days or for the period of April 7, 2003, to May 28, 2005. Id. As outlined above, in such a circumstance, Inmate may not obtain mandamus relief here, but must seek modification or clarification from the trial court.
Accordingly, we sustain DOC's PO and dismiss the PFR.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of January, 2025, the preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer of the Pennsylvania Department of Correction (Commonwealth Agency); George Little, (Secretary of Corrections); Dorina Varner (Chief Grievance Officer); and Bobbi Jo Salamon, (Superintendent/Facility Manager at SCI Rockview), is SUSTAINED, and the petition for review filed by Kyle Pierce is DISMISSED.