§ 9760. Credit for time served.
After reviewing the information submitted under section 9737 (relating to report of
outstanding charges and sentences) the court shall give credit as follows:
(1) Credit against the maximum term and any minimum term shall be given to the defendant
for all time spent in custody as a result of the criminal charge for which a prison
sentence is imposed or as a result of the conduct on which such a charge is based.
Credit shall include credit for time spent in custody prior to trial, during trial,
pending sentence, and pending the resolution of an appeal.
(2) Credit against the maximum term and any minimum term shall be given to the defendant
for all time spent in custody under a prior sentence if he is later reprosecuted and
resentenced for the same offense or for another offense based on the same act or acts.
This shall include credit in accordance with paragraph (1) of this section for all
time spent in custody as a result of both the original charge and any subsequent charge
for the same offense or for another offense based on the same act or acts.
(3) If the defendant is serving multiple sentences, and if one of the sentences is set
aside as the result of direct or collateral attack, credit against the maximum and
any minimum term of the remaining sentences shall be given for all time served in
relation to the sentence set aside since the commission of the offenses on which the
sentences were based.
(4) If the defendant is arrested on one charge and later prosecuted on another charge
growing out of an act or acts that occurred prior to his arrest, credit against the
maximum term and any minimum term of any sentence resulting from such prosecution
shall be given for all time spent in custody under the former charge that has not
been credited against another sentence.
(Oct. 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, eff. 60 days)
1980 Amendment. Act 142 amended the intro. par.
Cross References. Section 9760 is referred to in section 9737 of this title; section 4105 of Title 61
(Prisons and Parole).
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Chiappini, 782 A.2d 490 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 12× “The parties agree that the issue before this Court is one of first impression and is whether a defendant is entitled to credit for time served in a home confinement/electronic monitoring program against his sentence for purposes of Section 9760 of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.…”
Martin v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Application of the statutory criteria to sentencing for new *304 criminal charges has frequently been utilized pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 in the absence of legislative direction.”
McCray v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005).
· cites it 6× “[12] Accordingly, in a published Opinion, the Commonwealth Court granted McCray's Application for Summary Relief sounding in mandamus.”
Commonwealth v. Kyle, 874 A.2d 12 (Pa. 2005).
· cites it 8× “In his PCRA appeal to the Superior Court, appellee argued that he should receive credit, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 (credit for time served awarded for time spent in "custody"), for the 268 days he was released on bail subject to electronic monitoring at his home.”
Commonwealth v. Bowser, 783 A.2d 348 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 10× “2d 658 (1995), and claims our application of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 [2] therein requires him to be credited again with the time spent in jail awaiting trial.”
Smith, D. v. PA Bd. of Prob. & Parole, Aplt., 171 A.3d 759 (Pa. 2017).
· cites it 4× “On appeal, the Martin Court recognized 42 Pa.C.S. §9760 requires a court to 12 Judge Smith-Ribner dissented, reasoning Martin should receive credit on his original sentence for the excess time spent in custody.”
Jackson v. Vaughn, 777 A.2d 436 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 8× “Such substantive impact is inimical to the limited purpose and scope of procedural rules and an invasion of the province of the General Assembly, particularly as no conforming intent on the Legislature's part appears evident upon review of the pertinent statutory framework.”
Commonwealth v. Byrne, 833 A.2d 729 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 6× “42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1),(2) (emphasis supplied).”
Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 9771(b); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 (credit for time served).”
Commonwealth v. Nobles, 198 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 7× “1 Appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his request for credit for time spent at a juvenile detention facility under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1). We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Torres v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 861 A.2d 394 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 6× “After he pleaded guilty, the trial court granted credit for his time in "custodial treatment" pursuant to Section 9760 of the Sentencing Code, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760, which provides that a defendant may be given credit for the period of time spent "in custody.”
Commonwealth v. Vanskiver, 819 A.2d 69 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Finding the term "custody" in 42 Pa. C.S. § 9760 to be synonymous with the term "imprisonment" in 75 Pa.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9760(1) — 145 cases
McCray v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005).
“[12] Accordingly, in a published Opinion, the Commonwealth Court granted McCray's Application for Summary Relief sounding in mandamus.”
Commonwealth v. Kyle, 874 A.2d 12 (Pa. 2005).
“In his PCRA appeal to the Superior Court, appellee argued that he should receive credit, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 (credit for time served awarded for time spent in "custody"), for the 268 days he was released on bail subject to electronic monitoring at his home.”
Commonwealth v. Chiappini, 782 A.2d 490 (Pa. 2001).
“The parties agree that the issue before this Court is one of first impression and is whether a defendant is entitled to credit for time served in a home confinement/electronic monitoring program against his sentence for purposes of Section 9760 of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.…”
Commonwealth v. Nobles, 198 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“1 Appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his request for credit for time spent at a juvenile detention facility under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1). We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9760(2) — 9 cases
Commonwealth v. Byrne, 833 A.2d 729 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1),(2) (emphasis supplied).”
Commonwealth v. Nobles, 198 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“1 Appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his request for credit for time spent at a juvenile detention facility under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1). We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9760(3) — 7 cases
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9760(4) — 14 cases
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9760(a) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9760(l) — 1 case
Jackson v. Vaughn, 777 A.2d 436 (Pa. 2001).
“Such substantive impact is inimical to the limited purpose and scope of procedural rules and an invasion of the province of the General Assembly, particularly as no conforming intent on the Legislature's part appears evident upon review of the pertinent statutory framework.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.