Com. ex rel. Bleecher v. Rundle

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: HOFFMAN; FLOOD; WRIGHT
• Citation: 217 A.2d 772,207 Pa.Super. 443
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Leonard BLEECHER, Appellant, v. Alfred T. RUNDLE, Warden, State Correctional Institution, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
• Decision Date: 24 March 1966

Page 772

217 A.2d 772 207 Pa.Super. 443 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Leonard BLEECHER, Appellant,
v.
Alfred T. RUNDLE, Warden, State Correctional Institution,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. March 24, 1966.

[207 Pa.Super. 444]

Page 773

John P. Yatsko, Fitzgerald & Yatsko, Norristown, for appellant.

Henry T. Crocker, Richard A. Devlin, Asst. Dist. Attys., Richard S. Lowe, Dist. Atty., Montgomery County, Norristown, for appellee.

[207 Pa.Super. 443] Before ERVIN, P. J., and WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS and HOFFMAN, Jj.

[207 Pa.Super. 444] HOFFMAN, Judge.

Appellant, Leonard Bleecher, was arrested in New York State on July 1, 1961, on an extradition warrant based on charges lodged in Montgomery and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. He contested extradition from the date of his arrest until June 11, 1962. Thereafter, he waived formal extradition and was taken to Delaware County to answer criminal charges. After

Page 774

being found not guilty of the Delaware County offenses, he was transferred to Montgomery County on September 23, 1963. There he stood trial, was found guilty of burglary and larceny, and was sentenced to a term of three to six years to be computed from September 23, 1963.

Appellant, on appeal from the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, contends that his sentence should be computed from the date of his original arrest in New York, July 1, 1961.

As a general rule, in the absence of statute, a prison sentence begins to run from the date of its imposition. Commonwealth ex rel. Lerner v. Smith, 151 Pa.Super. [207 Pa.Super. 445] 265, 270, 30 A.2d 347, 350 (1943). Appellant relies on the following statutes, however, to support his contention that he is entitled to credit for all time spent in custody prior to his sentence on the Montgomery County charges.

Section 1 of the Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1036, 19 P.S. § 894 states in part: 'From and after the passage of this act, all sentences for criminal offenses of persons who at the time sentence is imposed are held in custody in default of bail, or otherwise, shall begin to run and be computed from the date of commitment for the offense for which said sentence shall be imposed * * *.' (Emphasis added)

Section 2 of that act, 19 P.S. § 895 provides: 'The date of commitment referred to in section one of this act, shall be the date of the last commitment for the offense for which the sentence is imposed.' (Emphasis added)

The benefits of the above statute were extended by the Act of August 14, 1963, P.L. 841 § 1, 19 P.S. § 898, which provides: 'Any person who has been convicted of an offense in any court in this Commonwealth and sentenced to a term of imprisonment shall be given credit toward the service of his sentence for any days spent in custody on this offense prior to the imposition of his sentence, including any days spent in custody on this offense prior to the entry of bail.' (Emphasis added)

The above statutes give credit for any days spent in custody prior to the imposition of sentence, but only if such commitment is on the offense for which sentence is imposed. Credit is not given, however, for a commitment by reason of a separate and distinct offense. See Commonwealth ex rel. Accobacco v. Burke, 162 Pa.Super. 592, 60 A.2d 426 (1948); Scasserra v. Commonwealth, 180 Pa.Super. 16, 118 A.2d 246 (1955); Commonwealth ex rel. Tyson v. Day, 181 Pa.Super.[207 Pa.Super. 446] 259, 264-265, 124 A.2d 426, 429 (1956); Commonwealth ex rel. Rogers v. Harris, 180 Pa.Super. 323, 119 A.2d 862 (1956); Commonwealth ex rel. Ventura v. Cavell, 186 Pa.Super. 204, 142 A.2d 456 (1958). Appellant, therefore, is entitled to credit only if his confinement was by reason of the offenses for which he was sentenced in Montgomery County.

With this principle in mind, we now consider whether appellant is entitled to credit on the Montgomery County sentence for 1) the period from July 1, 1961, to June 11, 1962, when he was in custody in New York while contesting extradition, and 2) the period from June 11, 1962, until September 23, 1963, when he was committed in Delaware County.

I

The Commonwealth contends that since in the extradition proceeding New York could not inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused as to the crime charged, Commonwealth ex rel. Hernandez v. Price, 385 Pa. 44, 122 A.2d 206 (1956), appellant's incarceration in New York was not by reason of the offenses charged in Pennsylvania.

Our research has uncovered no...