CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtPELLEGRINI, , LEAVITT, , and McCLOSKEY, Senior.
Citation857 A.2d 218
Decision Date01 September 2004

857 A.2d 218

Mikhail CALLOWAY, Petitioner

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted on Briefs July 30, 2004.

Decided September 1, 2004.

857 A.2d 219
Mikhail Calloway, petitioner, pro se

Arthur R. Thomas, Harrisburg, for respondent.

BEFORE: PELLEGRINI, Judge, LEAVITT, Judge, and McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge.


Before this Court is an Application for Summary Relief filed by Mikhail Calloway (Calloway), pro se, against the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) seeking credit towards his original sentence and seeking recalculation of his maximum original sentence.

In 1987, Calloway was sentenced to serve a ten-year state prison sentence (PA Sentence) with a maximum expiry of October 5, 1996.1 He was constructively paroled on June 11, 1992, to serve a prison sentence in Philadelphia County Prison (County Sentence). He was released therefrom on October 1, 1992.

Two weeks later, on October 15, 1992, Calloway was arrested in New Jersey for robbery. He did not post bail. On December 3, 1992, the Board filed a detainer with the New Jersey authorities in relation to this arrest. On April 29, 1993, Calloway pled guilty to a reduced charge of Theft from a Person arising from the arrest for robbery in New Jersey. He was sentenced to serve a three-year sentence in a New Jersey state prison on May 21, 1993, (NJ Sentence), with credit for time served from October 15, 1992, (the date of arrest), to May 21, 1993, (the date of conviction for the theft charge). The maximum term expiry for this sentence was February 4, 1995.

On April 20, 1994, the Board removed its detainer, and four days later (April 24, 1994), Calloway was paroled from his NJ Sentence, which now had a maximum term expiry of February 8, 1995. On July 1, 1994, he was arrested by New Jersey authorities for violating his parole, but was released 18 days later without having his parole revoked. On October 7, 1994, New Jersey authorities again arrested him for violation of his New Jersey parole, and this time he remained in official detention for four months and one day until February 8, 1995 (the recalculated date of expiry for the theft charge).

On March 7, 1995, Calloway was arrested by the FBI and tried in federal court for four charges of bank robbery. The next day, the Board lodged its detainer. He was then convicted and sentenced to serve 92 months in federal prison (Federal Sentence) for the four bank robberies. On December 14, 2001, Calloway was released from federal prison.

On February 6, 2002, the Board revoked Calloway's parole after a hearing and recommitted him for 24 months as a direct

857 A.2d 220
violator of his parole because of his four new federal bank robbery convictions. His PA Sentence now carried a maximum term expiry of April 8, 2006. This recalculation order did not credit his PA Sentence with the incarceration for the County Sentence (June 11, 1992 to October 1, 1992 = three months and 20 days); in addition, it did not credit his PA Sentence for the time he was incarcerated in New Jersey on the Board's detainer (December 3, 1992 to April 20, 1994 = one year, four months, and 17 days). The Board reasoned that none of this time served was for the original PA Sentence, and, consequently, Calloway could not receive a credit towards that sentence

In March of 2004, a New Jersey order was issued vacating Calloway's conviction for Theft from a Person and amended the conviction to Fourth Degree Theft, which carried a sentence of ten months instead of three years. The order indicated that Calloway was sentenced to time actually served from April 21, 1994, to February 8, 1995, and was issued as a result of a negotiated plea by Calloway and the local district attorney's office.

Calloway then filed a Petition for Review in the Nature of Mandamus2 addressed to this Court's original jurisdiction requesting that the Court order the Board to recalculate the maximum expiry date of his original PA Sentence to July 30, 2004, instead of April 6, 2006, to reflect the time he served (1) on the County Sentence (three months and 20 days); and (2) all the time he spent in confinement including his pre-sentence detention in New Jersey for the robbery arrest for which he did not post bail while on a Board detainer (five months and 18 days) and the time he served for the NJ Sentence (ten months and 17 days). Asserting that there were no issues of material fact and that he was entitled to relief as a matter of law, Calloway filed the present Application for Summary Relief.3


As to the County Sentence (three months and 20 days) for which Calloway is seeking credit, because this claim is an attack on the 2002 recalculation order issued...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Jubelirer v. Rendell, 102 MAP 2006.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • August 19, 2008 granted if a party's right to judgment is clear and no material issues of fact are in dispute." Calloway v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 857 A.2d 218, 220 n. 3 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004); Adams Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Commonwealth, 853 A.2d 1162, 1164 n. 1 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004), aff'd per curiam, 585 Pa. 3,......
  • Pa. Envtl. Def. Found. v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 7, 2015
    ...of fact are in dispute.’ ” Jubelirer v. Rendell, 598 Pa. 16, 953 A.2d 514, 521 (2008) (quoting Calloway v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 857 A.2d 218, 220 n. 3 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) ).108 A.3d 154 The purpose of the Declaratory Judgments Act is to “settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and i......
  • Moss v. SCI – Mahanoy Superintendent Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • August 29, 2018
    ...but is paroled from his or her original sentence to immediately begin serving a new sentence." Calloway v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole , 857 A.2d 218, 220 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). "[T]he concept of at liberty on parole is not at liberty from all confinement, but at liberty from confinement of ......
  • City of Lancaster v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 11, 2022
    ...of fact are in dispute." Jubelirer v. Rendell , 598 Pa. 16, 953 A.2d 514, 521 (2008) (quoting Calloway v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole , 857 A.2d 218, 220 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) ).The Municipalities first contend that since no material facts are in dispute, this Court may grant summary relief ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT