The Pennsylvania Parole Board has been ordered to recalculate an inmate’s maximum sentence date, granting him credit for 11 days he spent in custody after he should have been released on new criminal charges in North Carolina. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania found that Jaron Mitchell was being held *solely* on the Board’s detainer during that brief period and is therefore entitled to credit against his original Pennsylvania sentence.
The decision hinges on a foundational principle of parole law: if an inmate is held in custody only because of a detainer lodged by the Parole Board, that time must count toward their original sentence.
Background of Mitchell’s Case
Jaron Mitchell was originally sentenced in Pennsylvania for robbery, serving a minimum sentence that began in 2018. After being paroled, he violated the terms by moving to North Carolina without permission and subsequently faced new, serious drug-related charges there, including involuntary manslaughter (referred to as “death by distribution”).
In April 2021, upon his arrest in North Carolina, the Pennsylvania Parole Board lodged a detainer against him. This action essentially put a hold on him, ensuring that once his North Carolina legal matters were resolved, he would be returned to Pennsylvania to face proceedings for violating his parole.
Mitchell remained incarcerated in North Carolina until April 2023, when he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter. He received a sentence of 19 to 32 months, essentially time served, meaning he was scheduled for release from North Carolina custody shortly thereafter.
The Crucial 11 Days
The core of the dispute revolves around the transition period following his North Carolina sentencing. A memorandum from the North Carolina Department of Corrections, dated April 4, 2023, instructed the county jail to release Mitchell on April 7, 2023, specifically into the custody of a North Carolina probation or parole officer.
Mitchell argued that April 7, 2023, marked the end of his physical confinement related to the new North Carolina charges. He contended that from that date until April 18, 2023—when North Carolina authorities finally informed Pennsylvania officials that Mitchell was available for extradition—he was being held *only* because of Pennsylvania’s detainer. He sought 11 days of credit on his original Pennsylvania sentence for this period.
The Parole Board disagreed. They calculated Mitchell’s return-to-custody date as April 18, 2023, the day they were notified he was ready for pickup. The Board argued that because Mitchell had not yet reached the maximum expiration date of his North Carolina sentence (which would have been around December 2023), he remained under North Carolina’s supervision or “control,” even if released to a parole officer. Therefore, they claimed he wasn’t held *solely* on the Pennsylvania detainer.
The Court’s Analysis: Applying the *Gaito* Rule
The Commonwealth Court, led by Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon, relied heavily on the established precedent set in *Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole*. The *Gaito* rule states that if an inmate is held solely because of a Board detainer, the time spent in custody must be credited against the original sentence.
The Court noted that Mitchell’s situation was unique because sentencing on the new charges had already occurred. The key question became: What was the legal status of Mitchell between April 7 and April 18?
The Court found the plain language of the North Carolina release memo compelling. Absent any evidence or statute to the contrary from North Carolina law, the directive to release Mitchell to a parole officer on April 7 indicated that North Carolina authorities no longer intended to physically confine him on those charges.
“Put another way,” Judge Cannon wrote, “‘but for’ the Board’s detainer, Mitchell would have been physically released to serve the remainder of his sentence on the North Carolina Charges outside of North Carolina custody.”
The Board’s reliance on the fact that Mitchell still had time remaining on his North Carolina sentence—even if under post-release supervision—was insufficient to overcome the finding that he was held *solely* on the Pennsylvania detainer after April 7th. The Court concluded there was no indication he was held jointly by both jurisdictions during those 11 days.
Furthermore, the Court dismissed the Board’s reference to Section 6138(a)(4) of the Prisons and Parole Code, which suggests the period begins when the violator is “taken into custody to be returned to the institution.” The Court found this provision sets the date for recalculation when the violator *becomes available* to the Board, which, based on the North Carolina order, was April 7, 2023, even if the Board didn’t learn about it until 11 days later.
The Outcome
Finding that the Board erred in denying credit, the Court reversed the Board’s May 2, 2024, order. The case was remanded, directing the Pennsylvania Parole Board to award Mitchell credit for those 11 days and recalculate his maximum sentence date accordingly.