Jamieson v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole

• Decision Date: 02 July 1985
• Citation: 495 A.2d 623,90 Pa.Cmwlth. 318
• Parties: Joseph JAMIESON, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent. 5 Misc. 4
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 623

495 A.2d 623

90 Pa.Cmwlth. 318

Joseph JAMIESON, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent.

5 Misc. 4

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted on Briefs April 2, 1985.

Decided July 2, 1985.

Joseph Jamieson, pro se.

Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, Arthur R. Thomas, Asst. Chief Counsel, Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, Harrisburg, for respondent.

Before CRAIG and PALLADINO, JJ., and BARBIERI, Senior Judge.

BARBIERI, Senior Judge.

Joseph Jamieson invokes this Court's original jurisdiction ¹ and asks for relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus to compel the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) to recompute the maximum term expiration dates of his two 1970 Erie County sentences. The Board had previously filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer which were overruled. Jamieson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Jamieson I), 83 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 546, 478 A.2d 152 (1984). The case is presently before us on Jamieson's motion for summary judgment.

The pertinent facts of this case are not in dispute and can be summarized as follows. Jamieson was sentenced on June 2, 1970 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County to a term of five to ten years following his conviction for Robbery by Assault by Force. ² At the same time, he received a consecutive ten to twenty year sentence as a result of his conviction for Rape. ³ These sentences had an effective date of January 28, 1970. Upon his reception at the Western Diagnostic and Classification Center at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (SCI-Pittsburgh), the minimum and maximum terms of the Robbery and the Rape sentence were aggregated pursuant to the mandate of Section 1 of the Act of June 25, 1937 ⁴ to a single term of fifteen to thirty years. That fifteen to thirty year sentence had a minimum term expiration date of January 28, 1985 and a maximum term expiration date of January 28, 2000. Jamieson was granted parole by the Board on this aggregated sentence effective January 28, 1985 at which time he was released from SCI-Pittsburgh to reside in the City of Pittsburgh.

Jamieson contends in this action that the aggregation of his two Erie County sentences into a single fifteen to thirty year sentence denied him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. His equal protection challenge is based upon the application of former 19 P.S. § 897 only to sentences imposed at the same time by the same court. Had his two sentences been imposed by two different courts or on two different days, he argues, his maximum term expiration date would be shortened by five years to January 28, 1995 rather than January 28, 2000.

On these facts, Jamieson is clearly not entitled to a writ of mandamus. It is a well-settled proposition that mandamus is an extraordinary writ which is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial act or a mandatory duty where there exists a clear legal right in the plaintiff, a corresponding duty in the defendant, and the want of any other adequate and appropriate remedy. Unger v. Hampton Township, 437 Pa. 399, 263 A.2d 385 (1970); Donnell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 61 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 517, 434 A.2d 846 (1981). Jamieson concedes that the Board acted properly under former 19 P.S. § 897 when it aggregated his two sentences. Jamieson's challenge, therefore, is not to the Board's computation of his maximum term under former 19 P.S. § 897, his challenge is to the constitutionality of that statute as applied to him. In essence, what he is attempting to do by his mandamus action is to compel the Board to treat his two Erie County sentences as two separate consecutive sentences in violation of the mandate of former 19 P.S. § 897. This is not a proper use of mandamus. The purpose of mandamus is not to establish legal rights, but to enforce those rights which are already established. Hamm v. Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia, 79 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 547, 470 A.2d 189 (1984). It is clear that the use of mandamus to compel public officials to act in violation of a statutory duty is not the proper procedure for testing the constitutionality of a statute. Booz v. Reed, 398 Pa. 172, 157 A.2d 170 (1960). Absent a prior judicial invalidation of former 19 P.S. § 897, Jamieson's right to have his two Erie County sentences treated as separate consecutive sentences is not clear and mandamus is inappropriate. See Unger. As we noted in Hamm, we are bound by our Supreme Court's reasoning in Philadelphia Presbytery Homes, Inc. v. Abington Board of Commissioners, 440 Pa. 299, 269 A.2d 871 (1970), wherein Justice Pomeroy wrote:

[W]here it is necessary to establish the invalidity of an ordinance before the right sought to be vindicated by the plaintiff in mandamus can be said to exist, the right is not sufficiently "clear" to form the basis upon which to issue the writ.

Id. at 303, 269 A.2d at 873. Therefore, Jamieson is not entitled to a writ of mandamus in that his right to the relief he seeks is not sufficiently "clear."

Our determination that Jamieson has not stated a proper cause in mandamus does not require that we dismiss his action. ⁵ As noted by Judge Blatt in Jamieson I, the allegations of his complaint stated an equal protection claim sufficient to survive the Board's demurrer. However, rather than being an action properly addressed to our original jurisdiction, his equal protection challenge is an appeal from a determination of a Commonwealth administrative agency addressed to our appellate jurisdiction. ⁶ Accordingly, we shall treat his motion for summary judgment as a motion for summary relief under Pa.R.A.P. 1532(b). ⁷

The Board now contends that since Jamieson was not paroled on any of his 1970 Erie County sentences until January 28, 1985, the expiration of his aggregated minimum term, a ruling by this Court that those sentences should not have been aggregated would have no practical or legal effect upon those sentences. ⁸ See Cunningham v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 39 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 229, 394 A.2d 1315 (1978) (parolee's challenge to the aggregation of his multiple sentences made after parole was granted following the expiration of his aggregated minimum term came too late to be of any practical or legal effect as to those sentences). Accordingly, the Board argues that this issue is now moot as to Jamieson and we need not address the merits of his equal protection challenge. We disagree.

We agree with the Board's argument that under Pennsylvania law, a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to parole automatically upon the expiration of his minimum term and that the granting of parole is a matter of grace and administrative discretion. Commonwealth v. Brittingham, 442 Pa. 241, 275 A.2d 83 (1971); Counts v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 87 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 277, 487 A.2d 450 (1985). However, a prisoner does have the right to apply for parole upon the expiration of his minimum term and have that application fairly considered by the Board. Krantz v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 86 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 38, 483 A.2d 1044 (1984); Banks v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 4 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 197 (1971). Under his aggregated sentence, Jamieson was not permitted even to apply for parole upon the expiration of his first minimum term and there is no indication in the record that he would not have been paroled at that time. ⁹ Also, our resolution of his equal protection challenge could have an impact upon his ultimate maximum term expiration date and the amount of time he is under the Board's supervision. ¹⁰ Therefore, his appeal is not moot and the issue is ripe for our consideration.

We shall now turn to the merits of Jamieson's equal protection challenge to former 19 P.S. § 897. An extensive discussion of the mechanics of this statute as well as Jamieson's equal protection challenge appears in Judge Blatt's opinion in Jamieson I and need not be repeated at length here. See 83 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 548-550, 478 A.2d at 153-155. The essence of his contention is that former 19 P.S. § 897, as applied by our Superior Court's decision in Commonwealth ex rel. Lycett v. Ashe, 145 Pa.Superior Ct. 26, 20 A.2d 881 (1941) (statute applies only to two or more consecutive sentences imposed at the same time by the same court), treats two similarly situated individuals differently depending solely upon when and by whom they were sentenced. An individual, such as Jamieson, whose sentences were aggregated under the statute, would have a longer total maximum term than would an individual who has consecutive sentences which are not aggregated. This difference is due to the availability of "constructive parole" ¹¹ to the individual with consecutive sentences which allows a partial overlap of those sentences. Jamieson contends that this disparate treatment of similarly situated offenders bears no rational relationship to any legitimate state objective and thus violates the guarantee of equal protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. This issue seems to be one of first impression.

We begin our analysis of Jamieson's constitutional challenge with the well-settled principle that enactments of the General Assembly enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality and that a statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates either the Federal or Pennsylvania Constitution. United States v. Geller, 560 F.Supp. 1309 (E.D.Pa.1983); Hayes v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 493 Pa. 150, 425 A.2d 419 (1981). Any party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears a heavy burden and a court must resolve any doubts in favor of sustaining the statute's constitutionality. Daly v. Pennsylvania Horse Racing...