section 9760 purposes of credit in Pennsylvania

2023In Kyle, our Supreme Court explicitly held: “Today, we make clear that time spent on bail release, subject to electronic monitoring, does not qualify as custody for purposes of Section 9760 credit against a sentence of incarceration.” Kyle, 874 A.2d at 20 (emphasis added).

2021Initially, Appellant posits he is serving an illegal sentence and in doing so, reasons as follows: Generally, time spent outside of prison but under the supervision of electronic monitoring does not count as time served for the purposes of calculating time credit as, time spent subject to electronic monitoring at home is not time spent in “custody” for purposes of credit under Section 9760.” Commonwealth v. Kyle, 582 Pa. 624, 641 , 874 A.2d 12, 22 (2005).

2026This Court made this explicit in Barndt v. Department of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589, 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), which held that Section 9760 “does not contemplate credit for time served to be awarded twice.”3 3 Indeed, as this Court explained: Martin [v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003),] recognizes, therefore, that Section 9760 does not contemplate credit for time served to be awarded twice.

2025See Barndt v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589, 595 (Pa. Commw. 2006) (establishing Section 9760 does not permit credit for -3- time served to be awarded twice).1 Thus, the clear intent of Spinks’s argument, as described above, is to challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence rather than a claim the trial court improperly failed to credit him for time served.

2021Similarly, our Courts have consistently held that such double credit for time served is neither contemplated, nor authorized, by Section 9760[.]” Barndt v. PA Dept. of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589, 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); see also Taglienti v. Dep't of Corrections, 806 A.2d 988, 993 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (“[C]redit for time served prior to the sentencing date is governed by Section 9760 which does not provide for credit for time on unrelated offenses or when credit has been already credited against another sentence.”).

2020Similarly, our Courts have consistently held that such double credit for time served is neither contemplated, nor authorized, by Section 9760[.]” Barndt v. PA Dept. of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589, 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); see also Taglienti v. Dep't of Corrections, 806 A.2d 988, 993 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (“[Credit for time served prior to the sentencing date is governed by Section 9760 which does not provide for credit for time on -7- unrelated offenses or when credit has been already credited against another sentence.”); see also Commonwealth v. Hollowell, 604 A.2d 723, 726 (Pa. Super. 1992) (where

2026This Court made this explicit in Barndt v. Department of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589, 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), which held that Section 9760 “does not contemplate credit for time served to be awarded twice.”3 3 Indeed, as this Court explained: Martin [v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003),] recognizes, therefore, that Section 9760 does not contemplate credit for time served to be awarded twice.

2017Appellant is not entitled to double credit. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760(4); Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2014) (“This Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to ‘receiv[e] credit against more than one sentence for the same time served.’”), quoting Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa.Super. 1996); Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 309 (Pa. 2003) (“[W]here an offender is incarcerated on both a Board [of Probation and Parole] detainer and new criminal charges, all time spent in confinement must be credited to either the new sentence or the

2022This Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Miller, 655 A.2d 1000 (Pa. Super. 1995), is dispositive.

2017Section 9760(4) permits a credit “if, on the date of the defendant’s arrest on charges for which he is being sentenced, he was already incarcerated for unrelated charges for which he was not given credit on any other sentence.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 655 A.2d 1000, 1003 (Pa. Super. 1995).

2022After the hearing, PCRA counsel filed a memorandum of law claiming that Ortiz-Benabe was entitled to the requested credit pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760, which governs sentencing credit for time in custody, and Commonwealth v. Williams, 662 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. 1995).6 The court ____________________________________________ 4A DC-300B form is a commitment document generated by a trial court’s case management system and given to the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) along with a trial court’s sentencing order.

2009See Yakell, 876 A.2d at 1043 (noting that Section 9760 requires credit for time served in certain VOP circumstances); Williams, 662 A.2d at 659 (relying on Section 9760 to find that the appellant was entitled to credit for time served when the aggregate amount of time served exceeded the statutory maximum).

2026See Clayborne’s Brief at 58-59; Commonwealth’s Brief at 23; see also Phillips, 344 A.3d at 368-69 (recognizing section 9760 as encompassing a probation detainer as one of the causes of “time spent in custody” for which time credit may be awarded).26 Our decision in Johnson is instructive.

2026See Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1284 (Pa. Super. 2010) (construing sections 9760(1) and 9771(b) and concluding that a trial court is not required to award time for time spent on probation because section 9760 provides credit only for “time spent in custody” and section 9771(b) requires trial courts to give “due consideration” at resentencing to the time serving probation but does not mandate awarding credit for such time). - 55 - On appeal, a divided panel of this Court reversed.

2022See Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392 , 394 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2014). 5We note that the PCRA court simultaneously appointed counsel and issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss Ortiz-Benabe’s pro se petition.

2020Similarly, our Courts have consistently held that such double credit for time served is neither contemplated, nor authorized, by Section 9760[.]” Barndt v. PA Dept. of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589, 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); see also Taglienti v. Dep't of Corrections, 806 A.2d 988, 993 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (“[Credit for time served prior to the sentencing date is governed by Section 9760 which does not provide for credit for time on -7- unrelated offenses or when credit has been already credited against another sentence.”); see also Commonwealth v. Hollowell, 604 A.2d 723, 726 (Pa. Super. 1992) (where

2020“Because the legality of a sentence presents a pure question of a law, our scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo.” Commonwealth v. Pi Delta Psi, Inc., 211 A.3d 875, 889 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied, 221 A.3d 644 (Pa. 2019).

2020He argues the trial court should have applied 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760(2) and given him credit toward his aggravated-assault sentence for the time he served between his original sentence for the robbery and theft convictions and his aggravated- assault sentence. -4- A “trial court’s failure to award credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing involves the legality of sentence.” Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2018Section 9760(1) authorizes credit for time spent in custody prior to Corr., 845 A.2d 260, 262-63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), aff’d per curiam, 881 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2005).

2018Preliminary objections may be sustained only when the case is clear and free from doubt and “only where it appears with certainty that the law permits no recovery under the allegations pleaded.” Sweatt v. Dep’t of Corr., 769 A.2d 574, 577 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

2017Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212, 214 (Pa. Super. 1999)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 governs credit for time served.

2017Appellant is not entitled to double credit. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760(4); Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2014) (“This Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to ‘receiv[e] credit against more than one sentence for the same time served.’”), quoting Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa.Super. 1996); Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 309 (Pa. 2003) (“[W]here an offender is incarcerated on both a Board [of Probation and Parole] detainer and new criminal charges, all time spent in confinement must be credited to either the new sentence or the

2017Appellant is not entitled to double credit. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760(4); Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2014) (“This Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to ‘receiv[e] credit against more than one sentence for the same time served.’”), quoting Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa.Super. 1996); Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 309 (Pa. 2003) (“[W]here an offender is incarcerated on both a Board [of Probation and Parole] detainer and new criminal charges, all time spent in confinement must be credited to either the new sentence or the

2017Appellant is not entitled to double credit. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760(4); Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2014) (“This Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to ‘receiv[e] credit against more than one sentence for the same time served.’”), quoting Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa.Super. 1996); Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 309 (Pa. 2003) (“[W]here an offender is incarcerated on both a Board [of Probation and Parole] detainer and new criminal charges, all time spent in confinement must be credited to either the new sentence or the

2009See Yakell, 876 A.2d at 1043 (noting that Section 9760 requires credit for time served in certain VOP circumstances); Williams, 662 A.2d at 659 (relying on Section 9760 to find that the appellant was entitled to credit for time served when the aggregate amount of time served exceeded the statutory maximum).

2009See Yakell, 876 A.2d at 1043 (noting that Section 9760 requires credit for time served in certain VOP circumstances); Williams, 662 A.2d at 659 (relying on Section 9760 to find that the appellant was entitled to credit for time served when the aggregate amount of time served exceeded the statutory maximum).

2009Section 9760 addresses credit for time served and is located under Subchapter E of the Sentencing Code, entitled "Imposition of Sentence." "The principle underlying section 9760 is that a defendant should be given credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing for a particular offense." Commonwealth v. Mann, 957 A.2d 746, 749 (Pa.Super.2008). "[C]ourts have long held the failure to award credit for time served prior to sentencing involves the legality of sentence." Commonwealth v. Foster, 960 A.2d 160 , 170 n. 5 (Pa.Super.2008). *1007 ¶ 3 Our initial examination of Section 9760's involve

2009Section 9760 addresses credit for time served and is located under Subchapter E of the Sentencing Code, entitled “Imposition of Sentence.” “The principle underlying section 9760 is that a defendant should be given credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing for a particular offense.” Commonwealth v. Mann, 957 A.2d 746, 749 (Pa.Super.2008). “[Cjourts have long held the failure to award credit for time served prior to sentencing involves the legality of sentence.” Commonwealth v. Foster, 960 A.2d 160 , 170 n. 5 (Pa.Super.2008). ¶ 8 Our initial examination of Section 9760’s involvement i