 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miles v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole12/17/2003
He maintains that since his DUI conviction occurred after August 16, 2001, he is unfairly required to serve an additional 6 years and 14 days on his original sentence prior to serving the DUI sentence. In essence, he would "de-aggregate" his 1992 sentences.
We begin by noting that Miles has failed to raise this argument before the Board. Thus, the issue regarding aggregation of sentences has been waived. McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 631 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
Nevertheless, Section 9757 mandates that consecutive sentences be aggregated and does not allow for "de-aggregation" upon expiration of one of the consecutive sentences. "The aggregation of sentences is simply the combining of multiple consecutive sentences and treating them as if they were a single sentence." Timothy P. Wile, Pennsylvania Law of Probation and Parole § 4:6 (1993). Although not directly on point, Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 543 Pa. 578, 673 A.2d 898 (1996) illustrates that aggregated sentences are served as one sentence. In that case, the Supreme Court determined that the defendant's maximum sentences, each of which was less than two years, had to be aggregated and, if, as a result, the resulting aggregated sentence equaled or exceeded two years, the Board, not the sentencing court, had authority over parole matters.
At the time of Miles' parole on November 5, 2001, 4 years, 9 months and 10 days remained on the original aggregated sentence. As a CPV, he lost all time spent at liberty on parole, which amounted to 1 year, 6 months and 21 days. The time remaining on Miles' original aggregated sentence was 6 years, 3 months, and 31 days. He was then given a total credit of 3 months and 17 days for periods of confinement, leaving 6 years and 14 days on Miles' original aggregated sentence. He became available to serve his backtime on November 8, 2002; thus, his new maximum expiration date was calculated to be November 22, 2008.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Board did not err in calculating Miles' new maximum expiration date and crediting his sentence with time served. The Board's order is therefore affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2003, the May 29, 2003 administrative decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|