# E. Smith v. PBPP & the PA DOC

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · December 9, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11216383

## Case

- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 9, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Dumas
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11216383

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a petition directly challenging the legality of an inmate’s continued detention, on grounds beyond an administrative calculation, properly sounded in habeas corpus
- holding that a petition which challenges a 11 continued detention, not on the basis of an administrative calculation, is in the nature of habeas corpus
- holding that the correction of a Board action is not a proper use of the writ

## Opinion text

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Edward Smith, :
Petitioner :
: No. 322 M.D. 2023
v. :
: Submitted: April 8, 2025
Pennsylvania Board of Probation :
and Parole and the Pennsylvania :
Department of Corrections, :
Respondents :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION BY
JUDGE DUMAS FILED: December 9, 2025

Edward Smith (Petitioner) has filed pro se a petition for relief in the
nature of a writ of habeas corpus (Petition) in this Court’s original jurisdiction.
Petitioner seeks his immediate release from incarceration. In response, the
Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) and the Department of Corrections (Department)
(collectively, “Respondents”) have filed preliminary objections asserting
Petitioner’s failure to (1) exhaust administrative remedies and (2) state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.1 After careful review, we conclude that we lack
jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim and, consequently, transfer this matter to the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (Common Pleas) for disposition.

1
The Board also objected to improper service, which this Court sustained. See Order, 11/1/23.
The Court directed Petitioner to effectuate proper service and indicated that it would withhold
ruling on the remaining preliminary objections pending compliance with the order. See id.
Petitioner subsequently complied. See id.
I. BACKGROUND2
Petitioner is an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Greene (SCI-Greene). On July 17, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant
Petition, naming the Board and the Department as respondents. In his Petition,
Petitioner seeks his immediate release from custody, averring that his current
sentence has been calculated incorrectly, resulting in him remaining incarcerated
beyond the expiration of his lawful maximum term.
Petitioner was originally sentenced to two consecutive terms of
imprisonment: one of 5 years, 10 months to 11 years, 8 months, and another of 10
to 20 years. After being released on parole, the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County granted his Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA)3 petition on
January 25, 2002, which vacated his original sentence. The court resentenced him
to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years, with an effective date of October 8, 1985.
See Ex. H-1, Order of Sentence – PCRA Order of June 9, 1983, is Vacated, Docket
No. CP-92-CR-0009321-1982.
Following his resentencing and subsequent parole, Petitioner incurred
multiple technical and criminal parole violations, resulting in numerous
recalculations of his sentence. After several instances of reparole and
reincarceration, the Board issued a modified action that, according to Petitioner,

2
Unless stated otherwise, we derive this background from those alleged in the Petition. See
Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 7/17/23. Additionally, Petitioner attached exhibits to his petition;
any citations to said exhibits are specifically noted. See Foxe v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 214 A.3d 308,
310 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (observing that courts reviewing preliminary objections may not only
consider the facts pleaded in the petition for review, but also any documents or exhibits attached
to it).
3
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

2
recalculated his maximum sentence date.4 He contends that, based on this
modification, subsequent sentence calculations imposed on him by the Department
should have been adjusted accordingly and that his sentence should have concluded
on March 29, 2013. Although Petitioner was later arrested and received a new
sentence, he maintains that the Department should have given him credit for
additional periods of time served. He argues that this new sentence should have
expired on March 29, 2023, based on the expiration of his prior sentence.
Petitioner further asserts that the Department has acknowledged errors
in his sentence computation. In support, he cites a memo dated November 21, 2017,
from the Department’s Records Administrator, which he interprets as an admission
that his maximum date was miscalculated. See Dep’t of Corr. Memo, 11/21/17.5
When the Board failed to act on the Department’s “recalculation,” Petitioner
contacted the Department again. In response, the Department issued another memo
on April 25, 2023, which, according to Petitioner, confirmed that the Board should
recalculate his sentence.6 See Dep’t of Corr. Memo, 4/25/23. Despite these
communications, Petitioner avers that the Board has taken no corrective action, and

4
We note that Petitioner has not attached any Board decisions in support of his claims to his
Petition. See generally Pet. for Rev., 7/17/23.
5
In this memo, the Department seemingly summarizes Petitioner’s contentions, reciting his
timeline, and offering an opinion that “the Board would I believe have to rescind the last Board
action reflecting a PV maximum date of 7/5/2016 since that is no longer the maximum. . . .” See
Dep’t of Corr. Memo, 11/21/17, at 2.
6
In relevant part, the letter states: “It appears that the Parole Violation calculations were not
recalculated on at [sic] JV3900, as such MX9169 has not been recalculated either. The [Board]
will need contacted [sic] on this. I have attached your 03/29/2023 request and documents and have
forwarded them to the [Board] for review/possible recalculation.” Dep’t of Corr. Memo, 4/25/23.

3
he is now unlawfully detained beyond his maximum term. Accordingly, Petitioner
seeks immediate habeas relief and requests his immediate release from custody.7
On October 26, 2023, the Board filed preliminary objections, asserting
improper service and failure to exhaust all administrative remedies. See Bd.’s
Prelim. Objs., 10/26/23, at 1-2. The Board contends that Petitioner is challenging
the calculation of his parole violation maximum date, a matter within this Court’s
appellate jurisdiction only after all administrative remedies have been exhausted and
cannot be addressed in its original jurisdiction. See id. Following the Board’s filing,
this Court issued an order on November 1, 2023, directing Petitioner to serve his
Petition on the Board, the Department, and the Attorney General’s Office. See
Order, 11/1/23. Petitioner effectuated service on all parties on December 19, 2023.
See Certificate of Serv. Filed, 12/19/23.
On December 20, 2023, the Department filed its own preliminary
objections under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(7), asserting that Petitioner failed to pursue
available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. See Dep’t’s Prelim.
Objs., 12/20/23. The Department also raised a demurrer, contending that Petitioner
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Specifically, the
Department maintains that the Petition is more appropriately characterized as a
request for mandamus relief, and Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right
to such relief. See id. at 4-6. The Department further contends that Petitioner’s
challenge is directed at the Board’s parole-related decisions, not the Department’s

7
Specifically, Petitioner states that he “is being held beyond his maximum prison term and
that [Respondents] ha[ve] failed to take any action to correct this illegality,” and “[a]s a result of
their failure to act, the Petitioner . . . is entitled to immediate . . . release from custody.” See Pet.
for Rev., 7/21/23, at 4.

4
sentence computation, and that Petitioner has not established any error in sentence
recalculation. See id. at 6.
On January 19, 2024, this Court ordered Respondents to file briefs on
or before February 20, 2024, and directed Petitioner to file his brief on or before
March 21, 2024. Respondents timely filed their briefs; however, Petitioner failed to
submit a brief.
II. DISCUSSION
Generally, we would consider the merits of Respondents’ preliminary
objections. However, we cannot do so in this instance because we lack original or
ancillary jurisdiction to consider this matter.8
The original jurisdiction of this Court is unique, as it is wholly statutory
and narrowly circumscribed. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 761; see also id. §§ 762-764.
Specifically, Section 761(a)(1)(i) of the Judicial Code provides that the
Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or
proceedings “[a]gainst the Commonwealth government, including any officer
thereof, acting in his official capacity, except [] actions or proceedings in the nature
of applications for a writ of habeas corpus or post-conviction relief not ancillary to
proceedings within the appellate jurisdiction of the court.” See 42 Pa.C.S.
§761(a)(1)(i). Ancillary jurisdiction is defined as the “[p]ower of a court to
adjudicate and determine matters incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction
of an action.” Kester v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 609 A.2d 622, 625 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1992) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. 1979). A matter is not ancillary

8
The Department and the Board have not expressly challenged our original jurisdiction over
Petitioner’s claim. But see Bd.’s Prelim. Objs. at 1-2 (recognizing that we lack original jurisdiction
over its parole decisions); Bd.’s Br. at 5 (noting that this Court cannot entertain habeas corpus
petitions); Dep’t’s Br. at 1 (same). Nevertheless, we may address our jurisdiction sua sponte.
Pennhurst Med. Grp., P.C. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 796 A.2d 423, 425 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

5
until the court’s jurisdiction is actually being exercised—hypothetical appellate
authority does not render the matter incidental. See Kester, 609 A.2d at 625. If a
matter is filed in a court lacking proper jurisdiction, the case should be transferred
to the proper tribunal, not dismissed. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103; see also Brown v. Pa.
Dep’t of Corr., 81 A.3d 814, 815-16 (Pa. 2013) (criticizing this Court’s dismissal of
a habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the appropriate action
would have been to transfer the case to the court of record from which the inmate’s
judgment of sentence originated). Matters of habeas corpus lie in the jurisdiction
and venue of the court of record from which the order of detention came. 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 6502;9 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301(a).10
A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that aims to
evaluate the legality of one’s detention and “is available after other remedies have
been exhausted or are ineffectual or nonexistent.” Dep’t of Corr. v. Reese, 774 A.2d
1255, 1260 (Pa. Super. 2001);11 Wilson v. Pa. Bureau of Corr., 480 A.2d 392, 393

9
Any judge of a court of record is empowered to issue the writ. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6502(a). All
the courts of common pleas are courts of record. 42 Pa.C.S. § 321.
10
Specifically, that section of the Judicial Code states:
If an appeal or other matter is taken to or brought in a court or magisterial district
of this Commonwealth which does not have jurisdiction of the appeal or other
matter, the court or magisterial district judge shall not quash such appeal or dismiss
the matter, but shall transfer the record thereof to the proper tribunal of this
Commonwealth, where the appeal or other matter shall be treated as if originally
filed in the transferee tribunal on the date when the appeal or other matter was first
filed in a court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth.
42 Pa.C.S. § 5103(a).
11
Although decisions of the Superior Court are not binding on this Court, they may provide
persuasive authority where they address analogous issues. See Lerch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd.
of Rev., 180 A.3d 545, 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018); 210 Pa. Code § 65.37; Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (“‘[N]on-
precedential decision’ refers to an unpublished non-precedential memorandum decision of the
Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019 . . . . Non-precedential decisions . . . may be cited for their
persuasive value.”).

6
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1984); Cook v. Garman, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 58 C.D. 2021, filed Feb.
28, 2022); Kester 609 A.2d at 625 (“[h]abeas corpus is the recognized means for
testing the legality of detention”). “An application for a writ of habeas corpus
requests the applicant’s release from prison.” See Warren v. Dep’t of Corr., 616
A.2d 140, 142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992); McNair v. Owens, 576 A.2d 95, 99 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1990); Reese, 774 A.2d at 1260 (citing Commonwealth v. Isabell, 467 A.2d 1287,
1291 (Pa. 1983)),12 for the proposition that habeas corpus is a “remedy for
deliverance from illegal confinement,” which includes an “illegal detention resulting
from an incorrect computation of [an] appellant’s sentence by prison officials”);
Brown v. Dep’t of Corr., 601 A.2d 1345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (holding that a petition
directly challenging the legality of an inmate’s continued detention, on grounds
beyond an administrative calculation, properly sounded in habeas corpus); habeas
corpus, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining habeas corpus as a writ
“used to test the legality of an arrest or commitment”); but see Wilson v. Com.,
Bureau of Corr., 480 A.2d 392 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (holding that a petition seeking

12
In Isabell, 467 A.2d 1287, our Supreme Court held that a petition brought pursuant to the
Post-Conviction Hearing Act (a precursor to the PCRA) was improper for challenging a decision
from the department that imposed a parole revocation sentence consecutive to a prior sentence,
because the petitioner did not attack the lawfulness of the sentence itself but instead the legality of
his continued detention under that sentence. Id. at 1291. The Isabell Court concluded that such a
challenge should instead proceed via habeas corpus, since it relates to the lawfulness of
confinement, not the legitimacy of the sentence itself. Id.
This principle was later distinguished in Gillespie v. Department of Corrections, 527 A.2d
1061 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), where this Court refused to extend habeas relief to a petition challenging
the Board’s aggregation of consecutive sentences. In Gillespie, the petitioner did not dispute the
legality of either sentence or their consecutiveness; rather, he challenged the Board’s authority to
combine them administratively. Id. at 1063-64. This Court held that such a claim fell outside the
scope of habeas corpus. Id. Where Isabell involved an attack on the legality of detention imposed
administratively, Gillespie sought relief from administrative aggregation, not his actual detention
per se. Isabell, 467 A.2d at 1291; Gillespie, 527 A.2d at 1063-64.

7
the correction of the Board’s action in aggregating a defendant’s two sentences does
not sound in habeas corpus).
Furthermore, Section 6503 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503,
generally provides that “an application for habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of
detention may be brought by or on behalf of any person restrained of his liberty
within this Commonwealth under any pretense whatsoever.” However, “[w]here a
person is restrained by virtue of sentence after conviction for a criminal offense, the
writ of habeas corpus shall not be available if a remedy may be had by post-
conviction hearing proceedings authorized by law.” Id. The General Assembly has
established a distinct statutory process for addressing petitions for habeas corpus or
post-conviction relief. The PCRA serves as the exclusive method for “obtaining
collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for
the same purpose . . . including habeas corpus and coram nobis.”13 42 Pa.C.S. §
9542. Original jurisdiction over a habeas petition “shall be in the court of common
pleas. No court shall have authority to entertain a request for any form of relief in
anticipation of the filing of a petition” for habeas corpus. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545.
Typically, a petition challenging the recalculation of a maximum
sentence date by the Board is based on a dispute over the Board’s calculation of
sentence credit for, e.g., time spent at liberty on parole, time spent in a halfway
house, time spent in custody on a Board detainer, or time spent in custody without
bail while awaiting trial. Such a petition is presented to the Board in the first instance
and, if the petitioner is unsatisfied with the Board’s disposition, review is sought in

13
See also Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350, 355 (Pa. Super. 2020), which highlights
habeas corpus as an extraordinary remedy only appropriate where no other legal remedy exists
(noting that the PCRA subsumes the remedy of habeas corpus with respect to the remedies offered
under the PCRA). We cite this case for its persuasive value. See Lerch, 180 A.3d at 550; 210 Pa.
Code § 65.37; Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).

8
this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Carmichael v. Pa. Parole Bd., 338 A.3d
275, 278 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2025).
What takes this case out of that typical scenario and into the realm of
habeas relief is that, here, the gravamen of Petitioner’s claim is that one of his
sentences was vacated and altered, such that it was to be served concurrently with
another sentence rather than consecutively. See Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Petition), 7/17/23. That change, perforce, reduced Petitioner’s aggregate sentence.
However, Petitioner avers, the Board’s various recalculations of his maximum
sentence date failed to reflect that fundamental alteration. Stated differently,
Petitioner does not allege that the Board erred in its arithmetic or in deciding what
credit to give him in recalculating his sentence. Rather, he contends that the Board
failed to comply with the change in Petitioner’s sentence itself when recalculating
his maximum sentence dates.
Specifically, the Department noted in its memo that the sentencing
court’s order vacating one of Petitioner’s original sentences and resentencing to
reflect concurrent sentences “was not received into the Department until a later
time.” Dep’t of Corr. Memo, 11/21/17 at 1. Once the vacate order was received,
the Department apparently adjusted Petitioner’s sentence record accordingly, but the
Board’s subsequent minimum and maximum recalculations failed to reflect or
comply with the Department's adjustment. Id. at 2.
In Isabell, the dispute centered on whether the sentencing court had
imposed consecutive or concurrent sentences. 467 A.2d 1287. The petitioner was
challenging the Department’s interpretation of the sentence, rather than the
lawfulness of that sentence. Id. at 1291. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed
that “[n]either a motion challenging the propriety of the sentence nor a direct appeal

9
from the judgment of sentence properly challenges the discrepancy between the
signed sentence and the [Department’s] interpretation of it.” Id. Such a discrepancy,
the Supreme Court held, is properly addressed through a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Id. Moreover, “[s]uch habeas corpus petitions are properly brought in the
court which initially imposed the sentence.” Id.
In McNair, this Court considered what it termed “a jurisdictional
puzzle” involving a habeas petition. 576 A.2d at 96. The petitioner, McNair, was
released from prison in 1972 because of his mother’s illness, but several months
later, a district attorney filed a complaint against McNair alleging escape after he
allegedly failed to return to custody. Id. at 97. Apparently, no further action was
taken on the complaint. Some 15 years later, and 11 years after the expiration of
McNair’s maximum sentence date in 1976, a common pleas court dismissed the
escape charge for lack of prosecution, but the following week, McNair was taken
into custody, and his sentence was recalculated, purporting to add 5,428 days onto
his sentence maximum as escape time. See id.
McNair filed a habeas petition in the common pleas court, alleging that
he had been released and had never escaped, and that taking him into custody more
than 10 years after the expiration of his original sentence was improper. Id. at 96.
The common pleas court dismissed the action, reasoning that it was not a true habeas
claim and should have been brought in this Court either as a mandamus action in our
original jurisdiction or as an administrative appeal of McNair’s sentence
recalculation. Id. at 97-98. McNair, continuing to assert that the action was properly
brought as a habeas petition, appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court, which
has jurisdiction over appeals from dismissals of habeas petitions. Id. at 98. The
Superior Court transferred the matter to this Court.

10
Notably, McNair was not challenging the lawfulness of his original
sentence, nor was he seeking judicial review of a recalculation of his maximum
sentence date, as such. Id. at 98. Rather, he was challenging the legality of his
continued custody based on an allegedly incorrect determination that he had not
completed his sentence because of his alleged escape. Id. Relying on our Supreme
Court’s decision in Isabell, this Court observed that the “well known remedy [of
habeas relief] for deliverance from illegal confinement is particularly suited to the
wrong [of] illegal detention resulting from an incorrect computation of [a
petitioner’s] sentence by prison officials.” Id. at 99 (quoting Isabell, 467 A.2d at
1291 (cleaned up; emphasis added)). Having determined, therefore, that “the only
meaningful method” to challenge the Department’s improper continuation of
custody was through a habeas petition, the court remanded for a factual hearing on
the petition. Id. at 99.
In Reese, the Superior Court consolidated two cases for appeal. Both
cases involved “whether the respective trial courts had jurisdiction to hear and grant
. . . [p]etitions for writs of habeas corpus.” 774 A.2d at 1259. Ultimately, however,
the two cases presented a contrast that is significant here.
The first petitioner, Reese, alleged that he was being held after the
expiration of his maximum sentence date although no new maximum date had been
determined. The Superior Court held that,

[u]nder these circumstances, . . . the trial court properly
exercised jurisdiction of Reese’s [p]etition for writ of
habeas corpus. Even though Reese had challenged the
. . . calculation of [his] release date as improper, Reese was
being held beyond that date when he filed his habeas
corpus [p]etition. Thus, the trial court had the authority to
hear and rule on Reese’s [p]etition. See Brown, 601 A.2d
at 1347 (holding that a petition which challenges a

11
continued detention, not on the basis of an administrative
calculation, is in the nature of habeas corpus).
Id. at 1260-61.
By contrast, the second petitioner, Richart, who had not yet reached his
maximum sentence date, had merely attempted to appeal a recalculation of his
sentence. Id. at 1261. After that appeal was dismissed as untimely, Richart filed a
habeas petition. Id. The Superior Court held that such a petition was not a proper
mechanism for review of a sentence recalculation, explaining that

[u]nder these circumstances, it appears that Richart was
using his [p]etition for habeas corpus relief to challenge
the Board’s recalculation of his maximum release date.
This is not a proper use of the writ of habeas corpus. See
Wilson, 480 A.2d at 393 (holding that the correction of a
Board action is not a proper use of the writ). At the time
he filed his [p]etition for a writ for habeas corpus,
Richart’s maximum sentence, as calculated by the Board,
had not expired. Thus, the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to hear Richart’s [p]etition.

Id.
Significantly, the distinction drawn in Reese was between the situation
of Richart, who was merely challenging a Board recalculation, and the contrasting
situation of Reese, who was alleging improper continuation of custody due to the
Board’s failure to follow his sentence as imposed. Likewise, in Isabell, the
petitioner was challenging the application of his sentences, not merely a
recalculation. See Isabell, 467 A.2d 1287. Moreover, in McNair, the petitioner was
not challenging a mere recalculation, but rather, was alleging that his continued
custody based on an alleged previous escape was improper where the escape charge
had been dismissed. See McNair, 576 A.2d at 96, 98.

12
As in the cases cited above, Petitioner here is not challenging a
recalculation of his maximum sentence date, as such. Rather, he is alleging that
the Board is failing to comply with his sentence as imposed, in that the Board
failed or refused to correct his maximum sentence date after the original sentence
had been vacated and a new, shorter sentence was imposed by the sentencing court.
See Pet., at 2, 3, Nos. 10-11. Further, because he believes his maximum sentence
date has already passed under the new sentence, he is not requesting a
recalculation, but rather, his release. See Pet. at 4 (alleging that he “is being held
beyond his maximum prison term and that [Respondents’] [have] failed to take
any action to correct this illegality,” expressly requesting “immediate habeas
corpus relief resulting in his release from custody”).
Notably, this case is distinguishable from Wilson on two bases. In
Wilson, the Department failed to correct its records, in which it had erroneously
aggregated two consecutive, but actually separate criminal sentences, into one
sentence. 480 A.2d at 393. As a result, the petitioner was not considered for parole
once the minimum sentence date on the first sentence had passed. Thus, the
petitioner in Wilson was not alleging legal entitlement to immediate release, but
only asserting that the Department erred in aggregating the two sentences. Id.
Here, however, Petitioner alleges his entitlement to immediate release because the
maximum sentence has allegedly been served, rather than consideration for a
discretionary parole. See Pet., at 2-3. Petitioner’s assertions suggest that the
Department has updated records to reflect his altered sentence, but the Board is
nonetheless refusing to recognize the alteration in the sentence. See generally Pet.
The distinction between a petition challenging a recalculation and one
challenging illegal ongoing confinement can readily be seen in a hypothetical
example. In a case where no post-sentencing events occur that would require

13
recalculating the maximum sentence, such as new convictions, parole violations, or
adjustments for street time credit on parole, what remains is the original sentence,
with its original maximum sentence date. If the sentencing court later vacated that
original sentence and replaced it with a shorter sentence, if the Department updated
its records to reflect the new sentence, and if the Board then refused to comply with
the new and shorter sentence as reflected in the Department’s records, habeas relief
would be an appropriate mechanism for the petitioner to obtain his release once the
maximum sentence date had arrived. Calculation or recalculation of the maximum
sentence date, as such, would be no part of the legal issue before the court
considering the habeas petition.
Like the petitioners in Isabell and McNair, Petitioner here is seeking
habeas relief from what he avers is illegally continued confinement after his
maximum sentence date. See McNair, 576 A.2d at 98-99; Isabell, 467 A.2d at 1291.
Calculation or recalculation comes into play only because the maximum sentence
date here has been affected not only by the replacement of the original sentence,
but also by intervening recalculations triggered by post-sentencing events.
However, the legal challenge at issue here is to the illegal confinement itself, rather
than to any underlying sentence recalculation. The illegal confinement is the sine
qua non of habeas corpus relief. See, e.g., Brown, 601 A.2d at 1347 (observing
that inmates’ challenge to the legality of their continued detention was “grounded
not merely on an administrative calculation, but on the theory that [the Department]
had been deprived of the authority to continue [their] incarceration” and concluding
that “we can scarcely imagine a clearer example of a proceeding in the nature of an
application for a writ of habeas corpus”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, because habeas corpus relief would provide the only
meaningful avenue of relief for Petitioner, see McNair, 576 A.2d at 97-98,

14
jurisdiction lies exclusively with the court of common pleas. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545.
The statutory framework explicitly limits this Court’s jurisdiction over habeas
corpus petitions and post-conviction relief that are not ancillary to proceedings
within our appellate jurisdiction. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1)(i). Petitioner does not
have any current proceedings within our appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we lack
original and ancillary jurisdiction over the Petition and must transfer it to Common
Pleas. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 761(a)(1), 5103(a); Brown, 81 A.3d at 815-16.

III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner claims that he is incarcerated unlawfully and seeks his
immediate release. For the reasons set forth above, we lack original or ancillary
jurisdiction to consider this petition for review and, therefore, transfer it to the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for disposition, which shall treat it as a
complaint filed in its original jurisdiction. See Brown, 81 A.3d at 815; 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 761(a)(1), 5103(a).

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

15
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Edward Smith, :
Petitioner :
: No. 322 M.D. 2023
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Board of Probation :
and Parole and the Pennsylvania :
Department of Corrections, :
Respondents :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2025, it is hereby ORDERED
that Petitioner Edward Smith’s Petition for Review is TRANSFERRED to the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (Common Pleas) because this Court lacks
original and ancillary jurisdiction.
The Commonwealth Court’s Prothonotary shall transmit the record of
the above-captioned proceedings to Common Pleas’ Prothonotary, together with a
copy of this Opinion and Order, as well as a certified copy of this matter’s docket
entries. Subsequent to transfer, the assigned Common Pleas judge shall rule upon
the preliminary objections filed by the Department of Corrections and Pennsylvania
Parole Board (Respondents) within 45 days of the transmission of the documents
listed above. However, subject to the approval of the assigned Common Pleas judge,
Respondents may file amended preliminary objections within 30 days, and Petitioner
Edward Smith may respond within 30 days, and then the Common Pleas shall issue
its ruling within 45 days.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11216383. Public record. Not legal advice.