Superintendent McGinley, T. v. Watts, L.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 26, 2018
• Docket: 2845 EDA 2017
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S03002-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

LATEEF KHADEEN WATTS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v.

SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MCGINLEY, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Appellees No. 2845 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered July 31, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0008178-2005

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 26, 2018

Lateef Khadeen Watts (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order

entered on July 31, 2017, that dismissed his petition for writ of habeas

corpus on the basis that Appellant’s maximum sentence had not yet expired

and, therefore, the claims Appellant asserted did not fall within the trial

court’s jurisdiction, citing Commonwealth, Department of Correction v.

Reese, 774 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2001). After review, we affirm.

As stated verbatim in his brief, Appellant raises the following issues in

this appeal:

[A.] Did the Common Pleas Court err in dismissing Appellant’s habeas Corpus Petition under the auspice that his original ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S03002-18

judgment of sentence was NOT completed, thus, misapplying the facts for which was presented, and dismissing his habeas Petition erroneously?

[B.] Did the court of Common Pleas err in dismissing Appellant Habeas Corpus Petition where he suffers a unconstitutional detention against a judicially imposed order issued by Delaware Count court of Common Pleas whereas Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole unconstitutionally altered his original maximum sentence without constitutional, statutory, and judicial authority, thus violating Appellant’s 14th, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 5th Amendment rights y a continued forced incarceration?

[C.] Whether the Court of Common Pleas err’d in dismissing Appellant’s Habeas Corpus Petition when his rights to the Due Process Clause “Liberty Interest” continues to be violated by Governmental State Agency, pursuant to both State and Federal Constitutional mandates?

Appellant’s brief at 4.

Despite Appellant’s statement of the issues that he attempts to raise in

this appeal, the essence of his arguments centers on his allegation that the

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) erred in recalculating his

maximum release date, which this Court stated in Reese is not a proper use

of a writ of habeas corpus. See Reese, 774 A.2d at 1261. Moreover, under

the circumstances here, Appellant’s challenge should proceed through the

PBPP’s administrative process with any appeal directed to the

Commonwealth Court. See id. at 1260.

We have reviewed the certified record, Appellant’s brief,1 the

applicable law, and the opinion authored by the Honorable James P. Bradley ____________________________________________

1The Commonwealth/PBPP has not submitted a brief in connection with this appeal.

-2- J-S03002-18

of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, dated September 20,

2017. We conclude that Judge Bradley’s opinion accurately disposes of the

arguments raised by Appellant on appeal and we discern no abuse of

discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Bradley’s opinion as

our own and affirm the July 31, 2017 order on that basis.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/26/18

-3-