decided: April 12, 1985.
ALBERT C. WILSON, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Original jurisdiction in case of Albert C. Wilson v. Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections et al.
Albert C. Wilson, petitioner, for himself.
Francis R. Filipi, Deputy Attorney General, with him, Allen C. Warshaw, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Litigation Section, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondents.
President Judge Crumlish, Judge Colins and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Memorandum Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Williams, Jr., did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 89 Pa. Commw. Page 223]
Albert C. Wilson, proceeding pro se in our original jurisdiction,*fn1 challenges the aggregation of his two consecutive sentences by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections (Bureau). This Court ordered that Wilson's petition for a preliminary and/or permanent injunction and/or writ of mandamus be treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We enter judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Bureau.*fn2
On January 6, 1978, Wilson was sentenced to serve two consecutive terms by the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court. The first sentence was for five to ten years, and the second was for ten to twenty years. Upon the expiration of the five-year minimum term for the first sentence, Wilson requested consideration for parole. He was informed that the two sentences had been aggregated into one fifteen- to
[ 89 Pa. Commw. Page 224]
thirty-year sentence by the Bureau's institutional records office, thus precluding parole until he had served the aggregated minimum term.
After unsuccessfully pursuing his formal complaint through the proper channels with the Bureau, Wilson filed a petition for review with this Court.
Wilson's major contention is that the Bureau improperly aggregated his sentences.*fn3
In Blackwell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 31, 387 A.2d 506 (1978), this Court interpreted the statutory language which controls this case.*fn4 In line with our holding in Blackwell, the Judge who sentenced Wilson "should have 'indicated' an effective minimum sentence [for the total of all offenses] and thereby [have] establish[ed]
[ 89 Pa. Commw. Page 225]
a date upon which [Wilson] would be eligible for parole." Id. at 37, 387 A.2d at 509. It does not appear from the pleadings that he specifically did so.
Nonetheless, we hold that, by necessary implication, the sentences were aggregated by the sentencing court. Wilson's request, upon the expiration of the minimum term for his first sentence, was for "constructive parole" which theoretically would have allowed him to serve the parole time for his lesser charge while still in jail on the greater charge, thereby reducing the amount of time he would be required to spend under the supervision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. However, we held in Blackwell that, under Section 1 of the Act of June 25, 1937 (Act of 1937), P.L. 2093, as amended,*fn5 Wilson's maximum terms must be aggregated.*fn6 This
[ 89 Pa. Commw. Page 226]
requisite aggregation of Wilson's maximum terms*fn7 means that Wilson may not escape the supervision of the Parole Board until his entire aggregated maximum term has run, thus rendering his request for constructive parole meaningless and creating a de facto aggregation of his minimum terms.
We hold that the Bureau did not improperly aggregate Wilson's sentences.
Judgment for the Bureau.
Judgment on the pleadings is entered in favor of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections.
Judge Williams, Jr., did not participate in the decision in this case.
Judgment entered in favor of Bureau.