The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has issued a nuanced ruling concerning Vernon Robinson, a parolee whose sentence calculations were challenged after a complex series of violations and subsequent incarcerations. While the court sided with the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) in denying Robinson credit for time he spent out of custody following a county sentence, it ordered the Board to go back and provide a proper explanation for denying credit for a different period he spent on parole.
The case hinges on how Pennsylvania law treats time served—or not served—when a parolee commits new crimes, leading to recommitment as a Convicted Parole Violator (CPV).
Robinson’s Tumultuous Parole History
Robinson was first paroled on January 13, 2009, with a maximum sentence date set for September 13, 2013. His freedom was short-lived. In April 2013, the Board issued a warrant for a technical violation. Soon after, he was charged with new criminal offenses, leading to his confinement on April 29, 2013, because he couldn’t make bail.
On July 11, 2013, Robinson pleaded guilty to the new charges and received a county sentence of 4 to 12 months. The Board then officially recommitted him as a CPV in September 2013, ordering him to serve nine months of “backtime” once he was available.
Crucially, after serving his county time, Robinson was released to county probation supervision on November 8, 2013, instead of being returned to a state correctional institution to begin serving his backtime. This proved to be an administrative error.
Robinson’s situation became further complicated when federal authorities arrested him in March 2015 on drug charges, leading to a significant federal prison sentence imposed in late 2016. He was finally returned to state custody on February 1, 2024.
Upon his return, the Board recalculated his maximum sentence date to September 27, 2028, and denied him credit for time spent “at liberty on parole.” Robinson challenged this calculation and the Board’s refusal to grant credit for the time he was out following his county sentence.
The Court Affirms Sentence Recalculation
Robinson argued that the Board abused its discretion by not crediting him for the period between November 11, 2013 (his release to county probation), and February 1, 2024 (his return to state custody). He contended that the Board had no excuse for not seeking his arrest during the nine months he was on county supervision.
However, Judge Stacy Wallace, writing for the Commonwealth Court, disagreed. The court examined the statutory framework for CPVs and precedent regarding “credit for time served.” Generally, credit is given for time spent in custody due to the criminal charge, but the law is less clear when a parolee is erroneously released and not in custody.
The court distinguished Robinson’s situation from prior cases like *Jacobs* and *Kriston*, where individuals were given credit for time spent in alternative programs (like electronic monitoring) due to a singular, continuous sentence being interrupted by administrative error.
In Robinson’s case, he completed his county incarceration sentence. The court found that after that county term ended, he was supposed to return to state custody to serve his original backtime. His subsequent release to county probation was an error, but during that time, he was “at liberty,” not “in custody” under the Board’s control or serving a direct sentence that was interrupted.
Citing persuasive authority, the court emphasized the public interest in ensuring offenders serve their full sentences, stating: “We will not allow the court system’s inadvertent error to cancel any part of [the appellant’s] punishment for the crimes for which he was justly convicted and sentenced.” The court found no “equitable concerns” that would warrant granting credit for this period of erroneous liberty. Therefore, the Board’s recalculation of the maximum sentence date, yielding September 27, 2028, was affirmed.
The Board Must Explain Its Decision on Parole Liberty Credit
The second major issue involved the Board’s refusal to award Robinson credit for the time he spent at liberty *before* his federal arrest—that is, the time he spent on parole between January 2009 and April 2013.
Under the Parole Code, the Board has discretion to award credit for time spent at liberty on parole to a CPV. However, when the Board exercises this discretion to *deny* credit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has made it clear that the Board must provide a “contemporaneous statement” explaining its reasoning.
In this instance, the Board initially told Robinson it didn’t need to provide a reason, claiming the time was subject to “auto-forfeiture.”
The Commonwealth Court found that this reasoning was insufficient and acknowledged that the Board itself conceded its failure to provide the necessary justification.
“We therefore conclude a remand to the Board is necessary for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to proffer its reason for denying sentence credit to Robinson for his time spent at liberty on parole,” the opinion stated.
In conclusion, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the new maximum sentence date but vacated the portion of the Board’s order denying credit for the initial parole period. The matter was remanded, sending it back to the Board to articulate its reasoning for that specific denial, ensuring compliance with judicial precedent requiring transparency in discretionary sentencing decisions.