J-S15038-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : MAURICE TARON JACKSON : : Appellant : No. 1396 WDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 30, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003292-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and COLINS*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 24, 2019
Appellant, Maurice Taron Jackson, appeals from the order entered in the
Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition filed under
the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.
In its opinions, the PCRA court accurately set forth the relevant facts
and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate
them.2
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
WHETHER THE [PCRA] COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 The court denied PCRA relief on August 30, 2018. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2018. On October 3, 2018, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which Appellant timely filed on October 17, 2018. ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S15038-19
FAILING TO GRANT PCRA RELIEF PREDICATED ON A CLAIM OF THE DEPRIVATION OF PROPER TIME CREDIT?
(Appellant’s Brief at 2).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Daniel J.
Brabender, Jr., we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The PCRA court
opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the question
presented. (See Rule 907 Notice Opinion, filed May 23, 2018, at 2-3; Rule
1925(a) PCRA Court Opinion, filed October 22, 2018, at 1-2) (finding: record
belies Appellant’s claim; at sentencing, court expressly stated it awarded
Appellant credit for time served; to extent that Department of Corrections is
improperly computing amount of time credit due, Appellant’s remedy is to
pursue original action in Commonwealth Court). Accordingly, we affirm on
the basis of the PCRA court’s opinions.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 4/24/2019
-2- Circulated 03/26/2019 03:18 PM
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CRIMINAL DIVISION
MAURICE TARON JACKSON, APPELLANT : NO. 3292 of2015 C) o:, �-- I ' I
fT\ .-- re, rr, 0 ::r:; :,J?J:O � A 1:,:,;:r=-;; N 0 -n ""TJ0n N :::>-no ::.u OPINION ,...... 0 c:: :P"' rr: cno:z ,-.: c: Appellant, Maurice Taran Jackson, filed a Notice of Appeal from the Or��� ..... --1 �. gvs;-- aoJ (/) '" (/
2018, dismissing his Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief ("PCRA"). Appellant 'med a
Rule 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal on October 17, 2018. This
Opinion is in response thereto.
APPELLANT'S CLAIMS
Appellant claims he was never afforded credit for time served when he was arrested in
the State of Illinois on a fugitive warrant. Appellant claims this Court committed an abuse of
discretion and imposed an illegal sentence for failure to afford Appellant credit for time served.
In the PCRA, Appellant claimed he was not afforded credit for time served and, if credit for time
served was afforded, the Department of Corrections is incorrectly computing the credit for time
served.
Both of the these claims were addressed in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA of May
23, 2018, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Appellant's first contention
that he was not afforded credit for time served is factually unsupported. At sentencing, this
Court stated: "We'll give him credit for his time served since he has been incarcerated [going
back to ... October - - at Cook County, Illinois]. Sentencing Transcript, March 24, 2016, pp. 11,
12. Thus, the claim is belied by the record.
Appellant claims an illegal was sentence was imposed by the Court as the Department of
Corrections is incorrectly computing the credit for time served. As discussed in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA, Appellant's remedy is to pursue an original action with the
Commonwealth Court. "It is well-settled that if an alleged sentencing error is thought to be the
result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, the appropriate
recourse would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau's
computation." Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723, 725 (1992). This appellate claim is
meritless.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons set forth herein and in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA of May 23,
2018, this appeal is without merit and must be dismissed.
The Clerk of Records is directed to transmit the record.
BY THE COURT:
/��,t{Jj't!} DATE:
cc: District Attorney's Office William J. Hathaway, Esq., 1903 West gth St., PMB #261, Erie, PA 16505
2 Circulated 03/26/2019 03:18 PM
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON P�As:). OF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVA� ·� ('") -:,'- ?-- A"\< . .�. � ,...., v. CRIMINALDIVISION ··. ?.Jr-p ,..•'-p --" � 1 _,.- . -;::;..�('· , 'c;, -f) ·. 0 ('"> ((\ MAURICE T ARON JACKSON, PETITIONER N0.3292of2015 .... :, ,{\ 0 y ('"> s -:, . ""' (') C) {\ �"\0,.�: 1 � ,.J' ,::::;; • ..::. •• { j'.' o;;_--.-1. .,,,. y' ·(), cP
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS PCRA
. z-: PURSUANltTO PA.R.CRIM.P. 907
AND NOW, to-wit, this? · ....-day of May, 2018, upon remand by the Superior Court,
and after an independent review of the record including Petitioner's pro se Motion for Time
Credit Nunc Pro Tune filed January 19, 2017, treated as Petitioner's first petition for post-
conviction collateral relief, and the Supplement to Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief
filed April 16, 2018 by PCRA counsel, Petitioner's sentencing claim shall be dismissed as not
cognizable under the PCRA. Because the claim can be addressed based upon the existing record,
there is no need for an evidentiary hearing.
BACKGROUND
The matter came before the Superior Court on the pro se appeal from this Court's May
23, 2017 order denying the Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence Nunc Pro Tune (filed May
17, 2017). Reconsideration had been sought from the order of March 1, 2017 denying the
Motion for Reconsideration Nunc Pro Tune (filed February 21, 2017).
On March 6, 2018, the Superior Court remanded the case for the appointment of counsel.
The Superior Court directed PCRA counsel was to either file an amended PCRA motion dating
1 back to an unresolved prose Motion for Time Credit Nunc Pro Tune filed January 19, 2017, or
comply with the mandates of Turner/Finley. 1
The background of the case as further set forth in the Superior Court's unpublished
memorandum decision filed March 6, 2018 at 977 WDA 2017 is incorporated herein by
reference as though set forth at length.
On March 16, 2018, this Court appointed William J. Hathaway, Esquire, as PCRA
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S15038-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : MAURICE TARON JACKSON : : Appellant : No. 1396 WDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 30, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003292-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and COLINS*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 24, 2019
Appellant, Maurice Taron Jackson, appeals from the order entered in the
Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition filed under
the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.
In its opinions, the PCRA court accurately set forth the relevant facts
and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate
them.2
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
WHETHER THE [PCRA] COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 The court denied PCRA relief on August 30, 2018. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2018. On October 3, 2018, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which Appellant timely filed on October 17, 2018. ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S15038-19
FAILING TO GRANT PCRA RELIEF PREDICATED ON A CLAIM OF THE DEPRIVATION OF PROPER TIME CREDIT?
(Appellant’s Brief at 2).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Daniel J.
Brabender, Jr., we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The PCRA court
opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the question
presented. (See Rule 907 Notice Opinion, filed May 23, 2018, at 2-3; Rule
1925(a) PCRA Court Opinion, filed October 22, 2018, at 1-2) (finding: record
belies Appellant’s claim; at sentencing, court expressly stated it awarded
Appellant credit for time served; to extent that Department of Corrections is
improperly computing amount of time credit due, Appellant’s remedy is to
pursue original action in Commonwealth Court). Accordingly, we affirm on
the basis of the PCRA court’s opinions.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 4/24/2019
-2- Circulated 03/26/2019 03:18 PM
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CRIMINAL DIVISION
MAURICE TARON JACKSON, APPELLANT : NO. 3292 of2015 C) o:, �-- I ' I
fT\ .-- re, rr, 0 ::r:; :,J?J:O � A 1:,:,;:r=-;; N 0 -n ""TJ0n N :::>-no ::.u OPINION ,...... 0 c:: :P"' rr: cno:z ,-.: c: Appellant, Maurice Taran Jackson, filed a Notice of Appeal from the Or��� ..... --1 �. gvs;-- aoJ (/) '" (/
2018, dismissing his Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief ("PCRA"). Appellant 'med a
Rule 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal on October 17, 2018. This
Opinion is in response thereto.
APPELLANT'S CLAIMS
Appellant claims he was never afforded credit for time served when he was arrested in
the State of Illinois on a fugitive warrant. Appellant claims this Court committed an abuse of
discretion and imposed an illegal sentence for failure to afford Appellant credit for time served.
In the PCRA, Appellant claimed he was not afforded credit for time served and, if credit for time
served was afforded, the Department of Corrections is incorrectly computing the credit for time
served.
Both of the these claims were addressed in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA of May
23, 2018, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Appellant's first contention
that he was not afforded credit for time served is factually unsupported. At sentencing, this
Court stated: "We'll give him credit for his time served since he has been incarcerated [going
back to ... October - - at Cook County, Illinois]. Sentencing Transcript, March 24, 2016, pp. 11,
12. Thus, the claim is belied by the record.
Appellant claims an illegal was sentence was imposed by the Court as the Department of
Corrections is incorrectly computing the credit for time served. As discussed in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA, Appellant's remedy is to pursue an original action with the
Commonwealth Court. "It is well-settled that if an alleged sentencing error is thought to be the
result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, the appropriate
recourse would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau's
computation." Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723, 725 (1992). This appellate claim is
meritless.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons set forth herein and in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA of May 23,
2018, this appeal is without merit and must be dismissed.
The Clerk of Records is directed to transmit the record.
BY THE COURT:
/��,t{Jj't!} DATE:
cc: District Attorney's Office William J. Hathaway, Esq., 1903 West gth St., PMB #261, Erie, PA 16505
2 Circulated 03/26/2019 03:18 PM
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON P�As:). OF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVA� ·� ('") -:,'- ?-- A"\< . .�. � ,...., v. CRIMINALDIVISION ··. ?.Jr-p ,..•'-p --" � 1 _,.- . -;::;..�('· , 'c;, -f) ·. 0 ('"> ((\ MAURICE T ARON JACKSON, PETITIONER N0.3292of2015 .... :, ,{\ 0 y ('"> s -:, . ""' (') C) {\ �"\0,.�: 1 � ,.J' ,::::;; • ..::. •• { j'.' o;;_--.-1. .,,,. y' ·(), cP
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS PCRA
. z-: PURSUANltTO PA.R.CRIM.P. 907
AND NOW, to-wit, this? · ....-day of May, 2018, upon remand by the Superior Court,
and after an independent review of the record including Petitioner's pro se Motion for Time
Credit Nunc Pro Tune filed January 19, 2017, treated as Petitioner's first petition for post-
conviction collateral relief, and the Supplement to Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief
filed April 16, 2018 by PCRA counsel, Petitioner's sentencing claim shall be dismissed as not
cognizable under the PCRA. Because the claim can be addressed based upon the existing record,
there is no need for an evidentiary hearing.
BACKGROUND
The matter came before the Superior Court on the pro se appeal from this Court's May
23, 2017 order denying the Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence Nunc Pro Tune (filed May
17, 2017). Reconsideration had been sought from the order of March 1, 2017 denying the
Motion for Reconsideration Nunc Pro Tune (filed February 21, 2017).
On March 6, 2018, the Superior Court remanded the case for the appointment of counsel.
The Superior Court directed PCRA counsel was to either file an amended PCRA motion dating
1 back to an unresolved prose Motion for Time Credit Nunc Pro Tune filed January 19, 2017, or
comply with the mandates of Turner/Finley. 1
The background of the case as further set forth in the Superior Court's unpublished
memorandum decision filed March 6, 2018 at 977 WDA 2017 is incorporated herein by
reference as though set forth at length.
On March 16, 2018, this Court appointed William J. Hathaway, Esquire, as PCRA
counsel who filed a Supplement to Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief on April 16,
2018.
DISCUSSION
On February 4, 2016, Maurice Taron Jackson, Petitioner, entered a negotiated guilty plea
before the Honorable John Garhart to Count 1, Corrupt Organizations, and Count 3, Possession
With Intent to Deliver.2 On March 24, 2016, Petitioner was sentenced by the undersigned within
the standard range of the sentencing guidelines to an aggregate of four to ten years of
incarceration as follows:
Count 1: Corrupt Organizations - 12 months to 36 months of incarceration with 326 days of credit for time served, and
Count 3: Possession With Intent to Deliver - 36 months to 84 months of incarceration, consecutive to Count 1.
In the pro se Motion filed January 19, 2017, Petitioner averred the Department of
Corrections failed to award Petitioner credit at this docket for time served in Illinois from
October 29, 2014 to May 4, 2015. In the supplemental PCRA filed April 16, 2018, PCRA
counsel incorporated by reference the averrnents of the prose PCRA of January 19, 2017, and
� See Commonwealth v Jackson, Unpublished Memorandum filed March 6, 2018 at 977 WDA 2017. 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §91 l(b)(3) and 35 P.S. §780-l 13(a)(30), respectively.
2 asserted the failure to award credit for time served from October 29, 2014 to May 4, 2015
resulted in the imposition of an illegal sentence.
The premise of the claims is the Court failed to award credit for time served. The
premise is fundamentally incorrect. The Court awarded Petitioner credit for time served since he
was incarcerated. See Sentencing Order, March 24, 2016; Transcript of Sentencing Proceedings
held March 24, 2016 (Sentencing Tr.), pp. 11-12.
PCRA counsel's reliance upon Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723 (Pa.Super.
1992) and Commonwealth v. Diamond, 546 A.2d 628 (Pa.Super. 1988) is misplaced. The issue
presented in this case is not whether credit for time served was awarded, but rather, is whether
credit for time served was properly computed and/or properly allocated to a particular case or
docket. This is a matter for the Department of Corrections or the Commonwealth Court to
address. This is not a claim cognizable by the PCRA.
The erroneous computation of sentence by the Department of Corrections does not render
the sentence an illegal sentence subject to challenge in a post-conviction proceeding.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 563 A.2d 511, 512-513 (Pa.Super. 1989). "It is well-settled that if an
alleged sentencing error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by
the Bureau of Corrections, the appropriate recourse would be an original action in the
Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau's computation." Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604
A.2d at 725.
3 CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's claim concerning the computation of time
served is not a cognizable claim under the PCRA and Petitioner is not entitled to relief under the
PCRA.
Petitioner is hereby put on notice that his Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief
will be dismissed after twenty (20) days from the date of this Notice. Within this same time
period, Petitioner shall have the right to file any Objections to this Notice.
cc: histrict Attorney's Office , • �illiam J. Hathaway, Esq., PMB # 261, 1903 West Eighth Street, Erie, PA 16505 zMarice Taron Jackson, Inmate No. ML5936, SCI Albion, 10745 Route 18, Albion, PA 16475�0001 LEGAL MAIL