v.
H. Byrd
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :
:
v. :
:
Haddrick Byrd, : No. 167 C.D. 2020 Appellant : Submitted: May 27, 2022
BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: September 1, 2022
Haddrick Byrd (Byrd) appeals pro se from the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) January 28, 2019 order granting Byrd’s habeas corpus petition (Petition).1 Byrd presents one issue for this Court’s review: whether the trial court erred by granting the Petition without modifying the DC-300Bs2 to reflect the proper sentence and ordering his discharge. After review, this Court affirms. Byrd and two accomplices were arrested, and subsequently charged, in connection with the 1974 robbery of a men’s clothing store located at 639 South Street in Philadelphia. On September 18, 1975, following a jury trial, Byrd was Court.[5], 6 On January 18, 2022, Byrd filed an Application for Relief seeking to expedite the decision in this case. Byrd argues that because the trial court granted his Petition, the trial court should have also modified the DC-300Bs connected with his criminal case and discharged him from custody, because the maximum sentence release date expired. The trial court explained:
[*2][Byrd’s] instant [Petition] sought relief in the form of correction and/or clarification of his sentence. In support of [Byrd’s] request for relief, he appended a copy of a letter sent from [] DOC to the Honorable C. Darnell Jones, II[,] on July 25, 2008[,] seeking sentence clarification. [Byrd] correctly observed that [] DOC did not receive a written response. After reviewing the letter, [Byrd’s] case file, and contacting the Records Supervisor at the State Correctional Institution at Frackville, th[e trial c]ourt made the following determinations necessitating sentence clarification and recalculation[.] First, [] DOC’s letter incorrectly stated that “no credit was awarded.” See [Petition] at Exhibit E. To the contrary, the trial court awarded credit for time served at sentencing. See Sentencing orders, 5/6/[19]76. Second, [] DOC had not recalculated [Byrd’s] sentence to reflect the [Pennsylvania] Superior Court’s vacation of the one (1) to two (2) year sentence imposed for simple assault (CP[- ]1499-1174). Thus, th[e trial c]ourt entered orders directing [] DOC to recalculate [Byrd’s] sentence to reflect the trial court’s awarding of time[-served] credit and the [Pennsylvania] Superior Court’s 1996 decision.
[*3]Rule 1925(a) Op. at 2-3 (internal citations omitted). The trial court expounded: “Although the DC-300Bs omitted the trial court’s granting of time[-served] credit, they accurately detailed the [sentencing] court’s consecutive-sentence structure resulting in an aggregate term of [331/2] to [67] years’ incarceration on the above- captioned case.” Rule 1925(a) Op. at 3. Because the trial court ordered DOC to recalculate Byrd’s sentence to reflect the trial court’s awarding of time-served credit and the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s 1996 decision, correcting the DC-300Bs was not warranted. Further, it is undisputed that the sentencing court sentenced Byrd to an aggregate term of 331/2 to 67 years of incarceration. Deducting the one-to-two year sentence imposed for simple assault, as the Pennsylvania Superior Court ordered, Byrd’s modified aggregate term totals 321/2 to 65 years of incarceration. It is unclear how much pre-sentence time Byrd served. However, given that Byrd was held for court on October 29, 1974, he was convicted on September 25, 1975, and he was sentenced on May 6, 1976, he could possibly have served between one and two years.[7] Deducting another two years from Byrd’s aggregate sentence for time served, as the sentencing court ordered, results in a modified maximum sentence of 63 years. Thus, even giving Byrd the benefit of every possible inference, since only 46 years have passed since Byrd’s May 6, 1976 sentencing, his maximum sentence release date has not expired. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by failing to discharge Byrd.[8] For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.
[*4]_________________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
[*5]IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : : v. : : Haddrick Byrd, : No. 167 C.D. 2020 Appellant :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2022, the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court’s January 28, 2019 order is AFFIRMED. Haddrick Byrd’s Application for Relief seeking to expedite the decision in this case is DENIED as moot.
_________________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge