LeGrande v. Commonwealth, 031006 PACCA, 353 MD 2005
|Docket Nº:||353 MD 2005|
|Party Name:||Robert Anthony LeGrande, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, SCI Laurel Highlands Records Supervisor Rhonda J. Stairs, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Respondents|
|Case Date:||March 10, 2006|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Pennsylvania|
Submitted: January 6, 2006
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are the preliminary objections of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) to a petition for review in the nature of mandamus filed by inmate Robert A. LeGrande, representing himself. LeGrande asks this Court to direct DOC to credit his new state robbery sentence for time he served in federal prison.
In his mandamus petition, LeGrande avers the following facts. In January 1994, while on both federal and state parole, LeGrande was arrested and charged with robbery. On November 14, 1995, LeGrande entered a negotiated plea agreement on the pending state robbery charge. Under the agreement, LeGrande received a 6 to 20 year sentence. Also, the trial court ordered LeGrandes new state sentence to run concurrently with any other sentence he was currently serving.
The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) subsequently revoked LeGrandes state parole and recommitted him to serve the unexpired term on his prior state robbery conviction. Shortly thereafter, LeGrandes federal parole was also revoked, and DOC remanded him to federal custody so he could complete his commitments under his federal sentence.
Upon reparole from the federal sentence, LeGrande was returned to state custody on December 18, 1998, to begin serving his state backtime. State credit for the period of time LeGrande spent in federal custody is in question here.
DOC subsequently issued a recalculation order indicating LeGrandes state backtime began to run upon his return to state custody, and his new state robbery sentence would begin to run following completion of his backtime for the prior state robbery sentence. DOCs order also refused to credit LeGrandes new state robbery sentence with the time he served in federal prison.
Various proceedings ensued. These allegedly included a 2004 letter from an acting superintendent to the state sentencing judge inquiring about the intent of the concurrent sentence, and a subsequent hearing before the state sentencing judge during which he confirmed his intent that the new state robbery sentence be concurrent with any other sentence being served at the time.
Claiming DOC improperly calculated his new state sentence, LeGrande filed a petition for review in the nature of mandamus in 2005. LeGrandes petition seeks an order directing DOC to recalculate his new state robbery sentence in accordance with the trial courts...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP