Coady v. Vaughn

• Decision Date: 22 March 2001
• Citation: 770 A.2d 287,564 Pa. 604,212 Md. 1999
• Parties: Joseph COADY, Appellee, v. Donald T. VAUGHN, the District Attorney of the County of Montgomery, and the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, Appellants.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

770 A.2d 287

564 Pa. 604

212 Md. 1999

Joseph COADY, Appellee, v. Donald T. VAUGHN, the District Attorney of the County of Montgomery, and the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted March 14, 2000.

Decided March 22, 2001.

Kiersten Murray, Atty. Gen. Office, Philadelphia, for Vaughn, et al.

Nancy Winkelman, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, for Coady.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, and SAYLOR, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.

This court granted certification of questions of law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to address the issues of whether a person who has been denied parole may obtain review from a Pennsylvania state court of a claim that the denial of parole violated the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, and, if so, what is the proper method for review.

Appellee was convicted of rape and indecent assault in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County and, on June 14, 1990, was sentenced to six to twelve years imprisonment. Following the expiration of appellee's minimum sentence in 1996, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (board) denied parole. The following year, appellee was again eligible for parole but was denied relief. On December 11, 1997, appellee filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging the denial of his parole and seeking immediate release from prison. The petition alleged that between the time of appellee's offense and the time his parole was reviewed, changes in the criteria for granting parole¹ in this commonwealth violated the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution.² Following the district court's dismissal of the petition, appellee appealed to the U.S. court of appeals for the third circuit. The court, after hearing oral argument, declined to reach the merits of appellee's claim on the grounds that the ex post facto claim had not been presented to a state court. Accordingly, the court of appeals petitioned this court for certification, which we granted on December 13, 1999.

Direct appeal of the denial of parole is precluded by Rogers v. Com. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 555 Pa. 285, 724 A.2d 319 (1999), which held that due to its discretionary nature, the decision to deny parole is not an adjudication subject to appeal under the Administrative Agency Law³ and does not implicate any constitutionally protected interest. However, the Rogers decision noted that "[w]hile appellants are not entitled to appellate review of a Parole Board decision, they may be entitled to pursue allegations of constitutional violations against the Parole Board through a writ of mandamus...." 724 A.2d at 323, n. 5. Rogers, then, leaves open the possibility that a writ of mandamus is the appropriate avenue for presenting an ex post facto constitutional challenge to the denial of parole.

A proceeding in mandamus is an extraordinary action at common law, designed to compel performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty where there exists a clear legal right in the plaintiff, a corresponding duty in the defendant, and want of any other adequate and appropriate remedy. Bronson v. Com. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 491 Pa. 549, 421 A.2d 1021 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1050, 101 S.Ct. 1771, 68 L.Ed.2d 247 (1981).

It is undisputed that appellee does not have a clear legal right to the grant of parole, nor does the board have a corresponding duty to grant the same. However, the Commonwealth argues that a proceeding in mandamus is available to compel the board to correct a mistake in applying the law. Bronson, supra.

As this court has noted, "the General Assembly, in its wisdom, has conferred upon the Parole Board sole discretion to determine whether a prisoner is sufficiently rehabilitated to serve the remainder of his sentence outside the confines of prison." Rogers, 724 A.2d at 322. The threshold question to be addressed is whether the parole board improperly applied a new law that increased the appellee's penalty. This determination of whether the ex post facto right has been violated will necessarily involve an examination of the law that was applied in the denial of appellee's parole versus the law in effect at the time appellee was incarcerated. In keeping with the rationale of Rogers, that parole denials are not adjudications, and the fact that the granting of parole is wholly discretionary, parole denial claims are not normally suited to review by way of mandamus.

Mandamus will not lie to compel a purely discretionary act. County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 360, 490 A.2d 402 (1985). In Pa. Dental Ass'n v. Com. Ins. Dept., 512 Pa. 217, 516 A.2d 647, 652 (1986), this court further explained the nature of mandamus by stating:

[This standard] has usually been interpreted to mean that while a court may direct that discretion be exercised, it may not specify how that discretion is to be exercised nor require the performance of a particular discretionary act.... In short, mandamus is chiefly employed to compel the performance (when refused) of a ministerial duty, or to compel action (when refused) in matters involving judgment or discretion. It is not used to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way, nor to direct the retraction or reversal of an action already taken.

Thus, mandamus will not lie where the substance of the board's discretionary action is the subject of the challenge. Where, however, discretionary actions and criteria are not being contested but rather the actions of the board taken pursuant to changed statutory requirements are being challenged, an action for mandamus remains viable as a means for examining whether statutory requirements have been altered in a manner that violates the ex post facto clause. Such an action could be brought in the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court.⁴ Absent a change in the statutes governing parole, however, denial of parole would generally constitute a discretionary matter that is not subject to review. See Rogers, supra.

Accordingly, having answered the questions certified for review, we refer this matter back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

CASTILLE, J., files a concurring opinion in which NEWMAN, J., joins.

NIGRO, J., files a dissenting opinion.

CASTILLE, Justice, Concurring.

I join the majority opinion, however, I write separately to address another potential avenue of review, also not clearly foreclosed under Pennsylvania law, for a claim that a denial of parole resulting from an alleged change in parole guidelines violated the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. In my view, such a constitutional claim arising in connection with a prisoner's continued confinement may be cognizable under Pennsylvania's habeas corpus statute. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6501 et seq.⁵ The parties, unfortunately, have not argued the potential applicability of the habeas corpus statute, which no doubt explains the majority's exclusive focus on mandamus. Nevertheless, since the Third Circuit's query concerns any manner in which state court review of the constitutional claim may be had, some comment on the potential availability of review under the state habeas corpus statute is appropriate.

Preliminarily, I would note that this Court's recent decision in Rogers v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 555 Pa. 285, 724 A.2d 319 (1999), does not foreclose the availability of state habeas corpus review here. In Rogers, the appellants averred that they were entitled to appellate review of denials of parole by the Parole Board that they claimed were "arbitrary and capricious." Id. at 321. This Court held that an administrative parole denial does not constitute an "adjudication" subject to statutory appellate review under the Administrative Agency Law.⁶ The Rogers Court noted that this was so because the statutory definition of adjudication "clearly and unambiguously provides that parole decisions are not ones which are subject to appellate review by courts." 724 A.2d at 321 (citing 2 Pa.C.S. § 101). The Court also rejected a claim, made there, that there was a constitutional right to appeal the Parole Board's actions under the federal Due Process Clause. We rejected the constitutional right of appeal claim because a denial of parole does not implicate a constitutionally protected liberty interest. 724 A.2d at 322-23.

The Rogers Court's holding that there was no right to direct appellate review of the Parole Board's administrative denial of parole does not foreclose the possibility that certain constitutional claims might be cognizable, as original actions in Common Pleas Court under the state habeas corpus statute. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6502(a). Indeed, there was no issue in Rogers concerning the availability of state habeas corpus review. Moreover, this Court's recognition in Rogers of the potential availability of mandamus indicates that the decision did not purport to foreclose all review of discrete constitutional claims that might arise from parole denials.

In addition to the fact that Rogers does not foreclose state habeas corpus review, Pennsylvania's statutes, other decisions from this Court, and the very nature of habeas corpus review suggest that the type of constitutional claim raised by appellee may properly be pursued under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6501 et seq. Because the practical effect of a parole denial is the continuation of the prisoner's incarceration, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus would seem to be the logical and appropriate manner to raise a viable constitutional claim stemming from the Parole Board's decision.⁷ In Commonwealth v. Isabell, 503 Pa. 2, 467 A.2d 1287 (1983), this Court recognized as much. In Isabell, the appellant claimed that the Bureau of Corrections...