petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the Board results in waiver and precludes our review
How later courts described this case
- petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the Board results in waiver and precludes our review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Maurice Shoatz, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1234 C.D. 2024
: SUBMITTED: July 7, 2025
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: August 8, 2025
Petitioner, Maurice Shoatz, petitions for review from the Pennsylvania
Parole Board’s denial of his administrative appeal from an order recommitting him
as a convicted parole violator (CPV). We affirm.
The pertinent background is as follows. In August 2014, Petitioner
received a sentence of 6 to 15 years of incarceration following convictions for
firearms related offenses. Certified Record (C.R.) at 1-2. His minimum and
maximum sentence dates on those sentences were October 28, 2018, and April 28,
2027, respectively. C.R. at 2. In September 2019, he was released on parole with a
maximum date of April 28, 2027. C.R. at 8. On February 2, 2022, the Department
of Corrections lodged its detainer. C.R. at 15. The following day, the Philadelphia
Police Department arrested Petitioner on new criminal charges in Philadelphia
County. C.R. at 16, 64. The Philadelphia Municipal Court set bail at $750,000.
C.R. at 34. Petitioner failed to post bail and remained in custody at the Philadelphia
County Detention Center. On November 13, 2023, he entered a guilty plea to his
new criminal conviction of defiant trespass—actual communication.1 C.R. at 53, 56.
Subsequently, Petitioner waived his parole revocation hearing and
admitted to his new criminal conviction. C.R. at 24-25, 54. In January 2024, he was
sentenced to 12 months’ probation. C.R. at 82. In March 2024, the Board referred
back to its December 2023 decision and recommitted him as a CPV for 6 months
and established a parole violation maximum date of September 20, 2029. C.R. at
74. In its discretion, the Board did not award credit to him for the time spent at
liberty on parole. In support, it cited the fact that he absconded while on parole
supervision and his history of supervision failures. Id.
As the Board calculated:
[Petitioner] was paroled on September 10, 2019 with a
[parole] max[imum] date of April 28, 2027. This left
[him] with a total of 2787 days remaining on [his] sentence
at the time of parole. The Board’s decision to recommit
[him] as a [CPV] authorized the recalculation of [his]
sentence to reflect that [he] received no credit for the time
[he was] at liberty on parole. [Section 6138(a)(2) of the
Parole Code,] 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2). . . . This means
there were 2787 days still remaining on [his] sentence,
based on [his] recommitment.
The Department of Corrections lodged its detainer against
[him] on February 2, 2022. [He was] arrested on February
3, 2022 for new criminal charges[.] [He] did not post bail.
1
Defiant Trespass—Actual Communication is defined as follows: “A person commits an
offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place
as to which notice against trespass is given by . . . actual communication to the actor[.]” Section
3503(b)(1)(i) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(b)(1)(i).
2
[He was] sentenced on January 3, 2024 to [12] months’
probation. Because [he] did not receive a new term of
incarceration, [he is] therefore entitled to credit toward
[his] original sentence for 700 days from February 2, 2022
to January 3, 2024. Subtracting 700 days from 2787 days
leaves [him] with 2087 days remaining on [his] original
sentence. Adding that amount to [his] January 3, 2024
availability date yields a recalculated max date of
September 20, 2029.
C.R. at 82.
In April 2024, the Board received a request for administrative relief
from Petitioner. C.R. at 78-79. In August 2024, the Board affirmed its March 2024
decision. C.R. at 81-83. In September 2024, Petitioner petitioned for review of the
Board’s decision.2
On appeal, Petitioner argues that the Board lacked authority to extend
his original judicially imposed sentence. However, the Board has authority to extend
a maximum sentence date beyond that imposed by the sentencing court pursuant to
Section 6138(a) of the Parole Code, 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a). If a parolee commits a
crime while on parole and is convicted “at any time thereafter,” he may be
recommitted as a CPV. Id. As we explained in Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Board
of Probation and Parole, 77 A.3d 66, 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), “[i]t is well-settled
law that the Board retains jurisdiction to recommit an individual as a parole violator[,
and thus recalculate his maximum sentence date,] after the expiration of the
maximum term, so long as the crimes that lead to the conviction occurred while the
individual [was] on parole.”
2
Before this Court, Petitioner twice sought leave to add the judgment of sentence order to the
certified record. This Court denied both of Petitioner’s motions. See Cmwlth. Ct. Orders dated
11/22/2024 and 12/20/2024.
3
As for the Board’s recalculation of Petitioner’s maximum sentence
date, Petitioner was not entitled to additional credit. Pursuant to Section
6138(a)(2.1) of the Parole Code, 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1), the Board, in its
discretion, is authorized to grant or deny a CPV credit for time spent at liberty on
parole for certain criminal offenses if it provides a sufficient reason for doing so.
Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 159 A.3d 466, 474 (Pa. 2017). Here, the Board
declined to grant credit, reasoning that Petitioner absconded while on parole
supervision and had a history of supervision failures. C.R. at 82. Specifically, it
noted that he was paroled four times, absconded each time, and had four technical
parole violator recommitments. Id. Thus, we cannot find that the Board abused its
discretion in denying credit for time spent at liberty on parole.
As for Petitioner’s argument that the Board’s actions violated his
constitutional rights, Petitioner failed to preserve such issues on appeal in his request
for administrative relief submitted to the Board. See McKenzie v. Pa. Bd. of Prob.
& Parole, 963 A.2d 616, 621 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (petitioner’s failure to raise an
issue before the Board results in waiver and precludes our review). Notwithstanding
Petitioner’s waiver, there were no due process violations in the revocation process.
When he was released on parole in September 2019, he was advised of potential
penalties and accepted them as part of his release conditions. Following his arrest
and new criminal conviction, he signed a “waiver of revocation hearing and
admission form” in November 2023 thereby waiving his right to a revocation hearing
and admitting that he was convicted in violation of his parole. Finally, he was
afforded the opportunity to challenge the Board’s recalculation decision, which
satisfied his right to due process. See Young v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 409 A.2d
843, 848 n.5 (Pa. 1979).
4
Accordingly, we affirm.
_____________________________________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
President Judge Emerita
5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Maurice Shoatz, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1234 C.D. 2024
:
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2025, the order of the Pennsylvania
Parole Board is AFFIRMED.
_____________________________________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
President Judge Emerita