Opinion
669 C.D. 2021
09-29-2021
Michael A. Salvaggi, Appellant v. Kevin Ransom, Superintendent of SCI Dallas
OPINION NOT REPORTED
SUBMITTED: August 13, 2021
BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
Appellant Michael A. Salvaggi, an individual who was formerly incarcerated within our Commonwealth's prison system, appeals from the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County's (Trial Court) December 22, 2020 order. Through that order, the Trial Court dismissed three of Salvaggi's filings, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, an amended petition for review, and an application for summary relief. In each one, Salvaggi argued that Appellee Kevin Ransom, Superintendent of SCI Dallas, was required to release him from what Salvaggi contended was illegal confinement that had allegedly gone past the length of carceral sentences imposed upon him by the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County and the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. In response to Salvaggi's appeal, Ransom filed an application to quash Salvaggi's appeal (Application), through which he seeks quashal on the basis that Salvaggi has already been released from SCI-Dallas, a turn of events that Ransom maintains has rendered Salvaggi's appeal moot. Upon review, we grant Ransom's Application and quash Salvaggi's appeal on the basis of mootness.
"SCI Dallas" is shorthand for the State Correctional Institution at Dallas, a state prison facility operated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Throughout the rest of this opinion, it will be referred to as "SCI-Dallas."
I. Facts and Procedural History
In May 2007, Salvaggi was found guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County of one count each of receiving stolen property and unauthorized use of automobiles and other vehicles. See Salvaggi's Br., Ex. E. The following month, June 2007, Salvaggi then pled guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County to one count of theft of leased property. Id. As a result, Salvaggi received an aggregate sentence of 15 to 60 months in state prison for these 3 crimes. Id. Thereafter, in April 2008, Salvaggi pled guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County to 1 count of identity theft, for which he was sentenced to 8 months and 15 days to 60 months in state prison, which was to be served consecutively with his Clarion County sentences. See id.
Some of the facts pertaining to these cases have been drawn from relevant, publicly available criminal records, which can be found under docket numbers CP-16- CR-0000083-2006, CP-16- CR-0000436-2006, and CP-39- CR-0004813-2007. We are permitted to take judicial notice of this information. See, e.g., Pa. R.E. 201(b)(2); Doxsey v. Com., 674 A.2d 1173, 1174 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Salvaggi was subsequently paroled from these sentences on May 6, 2009. Application, Ex. A. He subsequently violated his parole terms multiple times over the course of the ensuing seven-and-one-half years, prompting the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board), on each occasion, to declare Salvaggi a technical and/or convicted parole violator and to order him to serve backtime. See id. On April 25, 2018, the Board issued a warrant for Salvaggi's detainment, in response to yet another violation by Salvaggi of his parole terms. Salvaggi's Br., Ex. C. Salvaggi was taken into custody by the Board on December 20, 2019, at which point the maximum date on his underlying sentences was May 11, 2020. Id., Ex. E; Application, Ex. A. While awaiting the Board's disposition of his parole violation matter, Salvaggi was held at SCI-Dallas. Application, Ex. A.
Prior to February 18, 2020, the Board was called the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. See Sections 15, 16, and 16.1 of the Act of December 18, 2019, P.L. 776, No. 115 (effective February 18, 2020); see also Sections 6101 and 6111(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code, as amended, 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101, 6111(a).
That date passed without the Board taking any additional action to address Salvaggi's parole violation, prompting Salvaggi to file the aforementioned petition for writ of habeas corpus, amended petition for review, and application for summary relief on June 29, 2020, July 20, 2020, and October 13, 2020, respectively. In each one, Salvaggi claimed that he was being illegally held at SCI-Dallas beyond his sentences' maximum date and sought judicial intervention to compel his release from confinement. The Trial Court held oral argument on December 21, 2020, and issued its order dismissing Salvaggi's filings the following day. This appeal followed.
Salvaggi initially filed his appeal with the Superior Court, which then transferred it to our Court on jurisdictional grounds on May 5, 2021.
II. Discussion
Though Salvaggi raises a number of substantive challenges to the Trial Court's December 22, 2020 order, we need not address any of them, as we agree with Ransom that Salvaggi's appeal has been mooted by his release from SCI-Dallas. As this Court has held, "[i]t is well settled that an appeal will be dismissed when the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the court to grant the requested relief." Taylor v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 746 A.2d 671, 674 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (citations omitted). We will refuse to dismiss a moot appeal "only if the issues involved are capable of repetition yet likely to evade review and of important public interest, or where a party will suffer some detriment without [our] court's decision." Id. With regard to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, such a filing is rendered moot upon the petitioner's release from confinement. See Com. ex rel. Van Fossen v. Paul, 486 A.2d 982, 983 (Pa. Super. 1984); Com. ex rel. Yambo v. Jennings, 286 A.2d 909, 911-12 (Pa. Super. 1971); Com. ex rel. Wood v. Maroney, 215 A.2d 286, 287 (Pa. Super. 1965); Com. ex rel. Spader v. Burke, 90 A.2d 849, 850 (Pa. Super. 1952).
"In general, Superior Court decisions are not binding on this Court, but they offer persuasive precedent where they address analogous issues." Lerch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 180 A.3d 545, 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).
By its very nature, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is appropriate only where the [habeas corpus] relator is in custody.4 Where a relator has been released . . . and is no longer in the custody of the superintendent of the . . . prison, a habeas corpus proceeding against the superintendent is moot, and an appeal from the refusal of the writ will be dismissed.
4 However, the relator need not be incarcerated to be in custody. See Com[.] ex rel. Ensor v. Cummings, . . . 215 A.2d 651 ([Pa.] 1966) (parole); Com[.] ex rel. Stevens v. Myers, . . . 213 A.2d 613 ([Pa.] 1965) (sentence[] imposed but not yet served); Com[.] ex rel. Paulinski v. Isaac, [397 A.2d 760 (Pa. 1979)] (bail). The consensus of these cases is that, to be in custody, the relator must be subject to conditions and restrictions which restrain his freedom and which are not shared by the general public.Com. v. Smith, 486 A.2d 445, 448 (Pa. Super. 1984).
In this situation, Salvaggi admits that he "was released [from SCI-Dallas] on April 7, 2021[.]" Salvaggi's "Motion Objection to Appellees [sic] Motion to Quash Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1972" at 1. Additionally, there is no evidence before us that would lend itself to the conclusion that Salvaggi is still in penal custody of any sort. Therefore, Salvaggi's appeal has undoubtedly been rendered moot by his change in circumstances. Nor can Salvaggi escape the grasp of this mootness, as his appeal fails to satisfy any of the aforementioned exceptions to this doctrine. This is because he has already been given the relief he sought through his Trial Court filings, i.e., his release from SCI-Dallas, and we do not believe the issues he raised will evade judicial review in the future, especially in light of the fact that we have previously addressed similar arguments in other matters. See, e.g., Ochsenhirt v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 553 C.D. 2020, filed Aug. 9, 2021), 2021 WL 3478670; Moss v. SCI-Mahanoy Superintendent Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 194 A.3d 1130 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). Therefore, we have no basis for allowing Salvaggi's appeal to proceed forward and must quash it as moot.
We note that the Department of Corrections' moves report appended to the Application indicates that the Board ordered Salvaggi to serve backtime as a convicted parole violator on February 24, 2021, and subsequently paroled him to a community corrections center on April 7, 2021. Application, Ex. A.
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing analysis, we grant Ransom's Application and quash Salvaggi's appeal as moot.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2021, it is hereby ORDERED that Appellee Kevin Ransom, Superintendent of SCI Dallas' application to quash Appellant Michael A. Salvaggi's appeal is GRANTED. Salvaggi's appeal is QUASHED on the basis of mootness.