Does the Time You Are Incarcerated for Not Posting Bail Count for Something ?
In Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 576 Pa. 588, 840 A.2d 299 (2003), the Supreme Court faced the question of what credit is owed to a parolee who is incarcerated, because of both a Board warrant and criminal charges, while awaiting trial on the new criminal charges.
There, the parolee, James Martin, while on parole from a robbery sentence, was arrested on May 30, 2000 and charged with, inter alia, two counts of driving under the influence (DUI). Id. at 591, 840 A.2d at 300.
On the same day, the Board lodged a detainer against him. Id.
Martin did not post bail; he was convicted of DUI on July 19, 2001 and sentenced to 48 hours time served, with one-year of probation to be served after serving his robbery sentence. Id.
On November 6, 2001, after a parole revocation hearing, Martin was recommitted to serve six-months of backtime as a convicted parole violator. Id. at 592, 840 A.2d at 300-01.
He filed for administrative relief with the Board challenging its re-calculation of his maximum expiration date and asserting that the Board had failed to give him credit for all of the time he had served on the Board's detainer.
Specifically, he argued that, because his new sentence was 48 hours time served, with a consecutive one-year probationary period, he should have received credit on his old sentence for the remaining time he spent as a pre-sentence detainee (from June 1, 2000 to July 19, 2001). Id. at 592, 840 A.2d at 301.
The Board disagreed and this Court affirmed, relying on a series of cases that we had construed under our understanding of Gaito.
Our Supreme Court reversed.
The Supreme Court, in Martin, explained that an indigent offender, being unable to post bail, should serve no less and no more time in incarceration than an offender who does post bail, id. at 598, 840 A.2d at 304, and noted that "the considerations relevant to the award of credit are just and equitable in nature." Id. at 604, 840 A.2d at 308.